Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MECHANICAL LIGHTERS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will facilitate the manufacture of mechanical lighters with a view to reducing the import of matches?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): Steps are being taken to facilitate the production of mechanical lighters of a simple and economical type.

MATCHES.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the inequitable distribution of matches; and which class of retailer should supply a householder with matches for household purposes?

Sir A. Duncan: The reduced supplies of matches now available are distributed under licence from the Matches Control, and retailers who normally supply householders with matches for household purposes should be receiving their fair share on the basis of pre-war trading, with adjustments for movements of population. If my hon. Friend has in mind any specific case of inequitable distribution, I will ask the Matches Control to look into the matter.

Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grocers are unable to supply their regular customers with matches? I will certainly give my right hon. Friend instances of this.

Sir William Davison: If the Question refers to the supply of matches to grocers and stores, I would point out that I find myself in the same position as my hon. Friend. It is quite impossible to obtain matches.

Sir Herbert Williams: What is the ration?

Sir A. Duncan: The usual source of supply of matches for household purposes is, of course, the grocer, and steps are taken to ensure that a proper pre-war proportion of matches is available.

Sir H. Williams: What is the proportion?

Sir A. Duncan: I am not able to say.

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Sir I. Albery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether women agricultural workers, not members of the Land Army, can be allowed extra coupons for obtaining necessary overalls, woollen gloves and Wellington boots?

Sir A. Duncan: A statement of the special clothing needs of agricultural workers of both sexes, including the needs of new entrants, has been prepared by the National Farmers' Union and the trade unions concerned and is now being examined. Additional coupon; will be issued where it is established that such needs cannot be met out of the normal ration.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to make any difference in the issue of coupons between members of the public who do, and do not, require athletic equipment?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir.

Mr. Hannah: Cannot anything be done for the Home Guard, for whom this is a very pressing matter, especially in Bilston?

SHOE REPAIRS (PRICE).

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now made an order controlling the price of shoe repairs?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. Discussions are proceeding between the Central Price Regulation Committee and the trade about the control of boot and shoe repairing charges, and I hope a decision will be reached soon.

Dr. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this matter has been before the Price Control Committee for


nearly two months, and is it not time that something should be done owing to the high prices charged in evacuation towns?

Sir A. Duncan: I hope that a decision will be reached soon, but this has been a very complicated and difficult question.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the trade, does he include the trade unions affected?

COSMETICS.

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has made an order which will have the effect of rationing women more drastically in respect of cosmetics than men and women are rationed in respect of cigars, cigarettes and pipe tobacco?

Sir A. Duncan: The object of the recent Order was to regulate more closely the manufacture of cosmetics. It does not reduce the quota of supply available to the public. On the contrary, by release of stocks in the hands of wholesalers increased supplies will become available. I do not think that a comparison can usefully be drawn between the use of cosmetics and the consumption of tobacco.

Sir H. Williams: Why does one amiable vice have preference over another?

WHISKY (EXPORT TO AUSTRALIA).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that Australia has manufacturing facilities for the whole of the whisky required there, what is the object of sending whisky there from this country, in view of the shortage here of whisky and the employing of valuable shipping space, labour, etc.?

Sir A. Duncan: Our exports of whisky to Australia have been on a greatly reduced scale in recent months. The Commonwealth Government are aware that it is not our wish to export to Australia any commodities with which, in present circumstances, they consider it desirable to dispense. The whole question of our export trade in whisky is being kept under close review.

PATENT FEES.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether

he has yet made any arrangements to simplify the procedure and reduce the cost incurred by patentees who apply to the court for a suspension of patent fees, in view of the fact that their patents cannot be worked owing to the war?

Sir A. Duncan: I am hoping shortly to introduce legislation to facilitate the obtaining of extensions of the term of their patents by patentees who have suffered loss or damage by reason of the war.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will that apply-to people who have patents which they have not been able to renew?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

EXPORT TRADE.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to discourage the opening of new outlets for British exports to the United States of America; and whether he is aware that the Department of Overseas Trade has declined to suggest the names of suitable agents for a particular industry in the United States of America, on the grounds that business has not previously been done in that market?

Sir A. Duncan: The growing demands made by the war upon our labour, materials and plant make it increasingly difficult to promote now lines of export trade; accordingly, it is sometimes not possible to encourage such developments. I shall be glad to look into the case my hon. Friend has in mind if he will let me have particulars.

Sir W. Davison: Surely it is the obligation of the Board of Trade to make contacts in the United States for possible business in the future? This is not the time to make applications of this nature. Surely it is the duty of the Board of Trade to develop and encourage our future trade after the war?

Sir A. Duncan: It is not so simple as that. We have to consider the susceptibilities of the United States in these matters, as well as the proper return we should make for the invaluable help they are rendering to us now.

Sir W. Davison: Is there any contact with trade organisations in the United States so that a proper understanding may


be established after the war with regard to Anglo-American trade?

Sir A. Duncan: Discussions in relation to the Lease-Lend arrangements are going on at the present time with the appropriate authorities in the United States.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are in touch with the Institute of Export as to the best way to keep alive our foreign markets in war-time with a view to the development of overseas trade the moment peace is in sight?

Mr. Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps are being taken to regain, after the war, for British exporting industries markets now being lost or voluntarily abandoned under Lease-Lend arrangements with the United States of America?

Sir A. Duncan: Winning the war must be our paramount task. But so far as is consistent with that and with our Lease-Lend obligations, everything possible will be done to preserve markets for our postwar trade. I shall be very ready to consider any suggestions that any trade organisation may have to make on the subject.

Mr. Hannah: Except for winning the war, do the Government realise that this question is more important than any other?

Sir H. Williams: Is the Export Council still functioning?

Sir A. Duncan: The Export Council is still functioning, and so is the export programme.

DISTRIBUTIVE TRADE.

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to securing that the distributive trade is organised in the most effective way to assist the war effort, he will direct local authorities to licence retailers of commodities other than foodstuffs?

Sir A. Duncan: In view of the severe strain placed upon local authorities by their present duties, which have been greatly increased by the war, I cannot see my way at the present time to ask them to undertake the very heavy additional administrative work which my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would involve.

Lieutenant Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of small shopkeepers are being compelled to close down, whereas the chain stores are making no attempt whatever to concentrate themselves? Cannot he make some fairer adjustment in the matter?

Sir A. Duncan: The whole of this subject has been dealt with in a report.

Lieutenant Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend intend making the report public?

Sir A. Duncan: I have only received the report this morning.

PRISONERS OF WAR.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. DAVISON:

14. To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present number of prisoners of war; whether he is satisfied that an inspectorate of four persons is adequate for the supervision of over 3,000,000 prisoners; and what is the result of recent representations by the Protecting Power with regard to a necessary increase in such inspectorate?

Sir W. Davison: This Question has been postponed, but in connection with the lack of inspectorate, may I ask the Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: The Question has been postponed.

Sir W. Davison: In connection with the postponement, may I ask, because this is a very urgent matter, whether my right hon. and gallant Friend will look into the question of the removal—

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War, what machinery has been set up to secure the co-ordination of Government action on questions affecting United Kingdom, Dominion and Indian prisoners of war?

Captain Margesson: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement showing in detail the machinery for coordinating the action of the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Dominions


and India, and also of the various Departments of the United Kingdom Government in matters relating to prisoners of war.

Sir W. Davison: Is this committee of the same character as that appointed in the last war, when Lord Curzon was appointed as umpire in cases of differences of opinion between Government Departments?

Captain Margesson: The answer is long, and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will study it.

Following is the statement:

In order effectively to co-ordinate the action of the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India, who are separate signatories of the Prisoners of War Convention, an Imperial Prisoners of War Committee has been set up with the following terms of reference:
To secure co-ordination of the action of His Majesty's Governments in regard to matters relating to prisoners of war both in our own and in enemy hands.

The Committee is composed as follows:

Chairman:

The Financial Secretary of the War Office, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Members:

The High Commissioner for Canada.

The High Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia.

The High Commissioner for New Zealand.

The High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa.

A representative of the Secretary of State for India.

In order to deal with day to day questions of administration, two sub-committees have been formed, likewise under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary. Meetings of the sub-committees are attended by representatives of the Dominion High Commissioners and of the Secretary of State for India, together with representatives of all the United Kingdom Government Departments affected.

So far as United Kingdom prisoners of war are concerned, the War Office has been entrusted with the general responsibility for policy and administration and

for watching over their interests and rights under the Geneva Convention. Other Government Departments are, however, concerned with certain particular aspects of this question. The Foreign Office, for example, acts as the channel of communication between His Majesty's Government and the Protecting Powers. The General Post Office is concerned with letters and parcels sent by postal service. The Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of War Transport have a responsibility for watching over the special interests of individual prisoners of war belonging respectively to the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Merchant Navy. The Colonial Office is likewise interested in the welfare of prisoners of war belonging to the Colonies, whilst the India Office in consultation with the above-mentioned Departments on the one hand and with the Government of India on the other hand watches over the interests of prisoners of war belonging to Indian Forces.

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any information has been received from the Protecting Power with regard to recent movements of British officer prisoner of war camps in Germany?

Captain Margesson: Apart from the announcement that some British officers have recently been tranferred to a new camp known as Oflag VB, no information has been received from the Protecting Power with regard to movements of British officer prisoner of war camps in Germany.

Captain McEwan: Has it not been common knowledge for some time past that there have been movements, and can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether any movement has been made to a camp called VI B, which, I understand, is a French or Belgian Stallag?

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that I have little information on the point at the moment. The Protecting Power has been requested to investigate and make a report.

Sir W. Davison: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that we are informed that some 2,000 officers have been evacuated and that they were obliged to leave their personal property and food parcels behind, and nobody


knows to what addresses to send parcels? As it is a serious and urgent matter, will urgent representations be made to the Protecting Power to get the addresses of these officers?

Captain McEwan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Protecting Power has the right to demand such information?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether negotiations are still in progress with the German Government with a view to the repatriation of seriously wounded prisoners of war, in accordance with Article 68 of the International Convention?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any fresh negotiations are to be undertaken by His Majesty's Government with reference to the exchange of prisoners of war?

Captain Margesson: No communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the German Government since the breakdown of the negotiations on 6th October. The desire of His Majesty's Government to secure as quickly as possible the repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners of war remains unaltered and they are in consequence prepared at any time to resume, through the Protecting Powers, negotiations for repatriation upon the basis of the Prisoners of War Convention of 1929.

Sir A. Knox: If the negotiations are resumed, will the War Office avoid making any public pronouncement on the subject until the whole thing is cut and dried, because of the enormous disappointment and worry which will be' caused?

Mr. Stewart: Are we to understand that the Protecting Powers are aware of the Governments' views on the matter and arc taking what steps they can to initiate negotiations?

Captain Margesson: I could not go as far as that.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the German Government are putting the whole responsibility upon our shoulders?

Captain Margesson: The world will have read the statement I made in the House of Commons last week.

Sir W. Davison: Have the wounded German prisoners been supplied with any information as to the real reason?

Captain Margesson: I believe that is so.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War why he was prepared to hand over German prisoners before receiving any of our own; and why one of our hospital ships was not sent over empty so that subsequently the two hospital ships could have passed each other in mid-Channel?

Captain Margesson: The origin of the negotiations with the German Government on the repatriation scheme and their subsequent development were described at length in my statement of 7th October, to which I have nothing to add.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: On what ground was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to trust the Germans, in view of the fact that he intended to hand over Germans before any Englishmen were released?

Captain Margesson: As I say, the full story was told in the answer that I gave only a week ago. I do not think it will help to pursue the matter further by means of Question and Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that E. M. Byrne, 420643c, Royal Signals, India, and P. Byrne, Royal Welch Fusiliers, each allotted their mother 7s. per week; that there are other six children attending school, yet the mother, anxious to help the war effort, accepted work at a factory of which he has been told with the result that the allowances have been stopped; why this has been done; and whether the money stopped is credited to the soldier sons?

Captain Margesson: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the withdrawal of dependants' allowance in this case. This allowance is designed to meet cases where hardship would be caused to de-pendants other than wives or children as a result of a man joining the Colours, and it would be inconsistent with the purpose


of the allowance to grant it without reference to the dependants' income from other sources. When the present case was reviewed in the normal way in July last, it was found that the net weekly income of the dependant, the dependant's husband and other sub-dependants exceeded the limit allowed by the regulations and the allowance was accordingly withdrawn. The allowance included a contributory allotment of 7s. weekly from Private E. M. Byrne, which is now in issue as a voluntary allotment. In addition the other son, Private P. Byrne, is making a voluntary allotment of 7s. weekly from his pay. This was suspended for a short period in September, 1941, owing to his absence without leave, but has since been resumed.

Sir R. Young: Does the Minister realise that it is cases such as these which militate against women entering munition factories?

SALUTING.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the feeling of all ranks against saluting when off duty or travelling; and will he consider some modification of the present system of saluting;?

Captain Margesson: I am not aware of any feeling among officers or men against saluting when off duty or travelling, and I see no reason to modify the present regulations.

Mr. Tinker: Evidently the Minister does not visit the same places as I do, because if he did he would realise that there is grave discontent existing among private soldiers. I have seen officers turn away to avoid embarrassing the men, and if the Minister makes inquiries, he will find that what I say is true.

Captain Margesson: It is conceivable that there may be cases to which my hon. Friend has had his attention drawn, but in the main I do not believe there is any grave discontent.

Mr. Wedgwood: If my right hon. and gallant Friend will look at Shirer's "Berlin Diary," he will see the changes which have taken place in the relations between officers and men in the Services in Germany.

Captain Margesson: I am reading the book at the moment.

STEAMSHIP "DUNERA" (MAJOR W. P. SCOTT).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) with reference to Major William Patrick Scott, officer commanding troops on the "Dunera," in what regiment this officer was gazetted as major in November, 1934; was he styled captain when the "Dunera" sailed; and has his rank since been changed;
(2) whether he will state the charges made against Major W. P. Scott, for which he was put on trial before a court-martial, specifying those on which he was found not guilty or guilty; and on what information these charges were framed?

Captain Margesson: The officer in question was gazetted major in the 14th London Regiment, Territorial Army, in November, 1934. He was transferred to the Pioneer Corps as a substantive major in November, 1939, and was given the acting rank of lieutenant-colonel on his appointment to command the troops on board the "Dunera" in July, 1940. He reverted to his substantive rank of major on relinquishing his command with effect from 8th October, 1940, and there has been no subsequent change in his rank. Major Scott was tried by court-martial on two charges under Section 40 of the Army Act of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. The first charge alleged that he improperly addressed the troops under his command in terms that suggested that he was aware of, and condoned, thefts of articles belonging to internees. The second charge alleged that having reasonable grounds to suppose that an interned alien had been treated with violence or neglect while in the custody of military personnel under his command he failed to ensure that any proper inquiry was made into the incident. He was acquitted on the first of these charges but was found guilty on the second. The charges were framed on the basis of the report of a court of inquiry, which was held as soon as possible after the members of the escort returned to this country.

Mr. Wedgwood: Are we to understand that there was no charge preferred against


him in respect of looting from the internees on board?

Captain Margesson: The charges are set out in my answer.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Major Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there have been any new regulations which affect the pay or allowances of present or future officers, which will have the result of reducing existing rates, since 1st July of the present year?

Captain Margesson: Apart from the introduction of the new rates of allowances for married officers which were announced on 9th September, the only change in officers' pay or allowances since 1st July has been the decision dated 5th July to reduce the indemnity for rent liability from a maximum amount equal to 91 days' lodging allowance to one of a maximum of 30 days in order to bring the regulations on this subject into conformity with war-time conditions.

Major Cazalet: Will the recent changes and their full implications be clearly and simply explained to all officers by their commanding officers, so that there may be no misunderstanding?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the letter from five privates in the troop-carrying company, Royal Army Service Corps, on the question of increased pay for soldiers and increased dependants' allowances; and what reply has he made 1:o this communication?

Captain Margesson: I have been unable to trace the receipt of such a letter in my Department. If, as appears to be the case, the letter dealt with the question of increased pay and allowances for other ranks, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the White Paper on the improved arrangements for making provision for the families of His Majesty's Forces during the present war, which will be published to-day.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that these soldiers sent me what they alleged was a copy of the letter they sent to the War Office, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire whether it has arrived and make a reply?

Captain Margesson: I have had careful search made, and we are unable to trace it.

SOLDIERS IN PRISONS OR DETENTION BARRACKS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of military prisoners detained in military detention barracks on 30th September, 1941?

Captain Margesson: The number of soldiers serving sentences at military prisons or detention barracks in the United Kingdom on 30th September, 1941, was 3,951.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in these detention barracks visitors have to speak, through bars, and will he put a stop to that?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: How many of these prisoners are of the ages of 17 and 18?

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman making any inquiry in connection with these prisoners?

Captain Margesson: There is another Question on the Paper dealing with that.

MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT (SOLDIERS' FAMILIES).

Major Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for War why the privilege of medical and dental treatment accorded to the families of pre-war Regular soldiers now serving, and to those of reservists called up for service, is not given to the families of the soldiers enlisted or called up since the beginning of the war?

Captain Margesson: The extension to the families of soldiers enlisted since the war of the facilities for medical and dental treatment at present enjoyed by the families of pre-war Regular soldiers or reservists now serving would involve an enormous increase in the numbers of Army medical and dental officers which could only be effected at the expense of the civil medical services. Moreover, the families of pre-war Regular soldiers are not eligible for medical attendance in their homes unless they live within a mile of certain fixed points, and, if the concession were extended to the families of war-time soldiers, its value would therefore vary according to the family's domicile.

Major Guest: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the provision of these facilities has not required any increased medical staff? Is he aware that the present procedure is that in the large number of cases where families are not able to obtain medical attendance from their own doctors, because they have no funds, they are referred to the relieving officer and, if the case is urgent, the relieving officer makes arrangements for them, but, if it is not urgent, they are referred to the public assistance committee? Does he not think it very undesirable that the wives and families of soldiers should be treated in this way and have to appear before the public assistance committee in order to get what they regard as their natural right?

Captain Margesson: I think the answer to the first part of the Question is that the emergency medical services are the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. As regards the second part, if this concession were to be made, it would entail an enormous increase in the number of medical and dental officers, which could only be effected at the expense of the civil medical services.

Major Guest: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that soldiers, and the wives of serving soldiers, were entitled to go quite normally to the medical service hospitals and that no change would be required in that respect?

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty which is being experienced in obtaining the required number of recruits for the Auxiliary Territorial Service, and having regard to the successful operation of the system of immobile units in the Women's Royal Naval Service, he will introduce a similar system in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, observing that such immobile units could easily be established in all large cities and towns where existing units of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are, more or less, permanently stationed?

Captain Margesson: This suggestion has been considered on several occasions and is at present being re-examined, but it presents great difficulties. There are very few Army installations suitable for the employment of units of the Auxiliary Territorial Service which are comparable

with such places as dockyards where personnel of the Women's Royal Naval Service are serving. Local service conditions for Auxiliary Territorial Service were tried out early in the war and were found to be unsatisfactory from many aspects. Such conditions tend to import unfair discrimination between auxiliaries of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and to restrict volunteering for general service, for which the majority of Auxiliary Territorial Service personnel are required.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the fact that the matter was being reconsidered would give satisfaction to the available resources of woman-power?

RUDOLF HESS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Rudolf Hess is now kept in camp in Scotland or to what camp he has been moved; and what are his daily rations?

Captain Margesson: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the present whereabouts of this prisoner. His daily rations are the same as those of his guards.

Mr. Thorne: Is the man in question getting any pay, and is he living in some villa or some big house?

Captain Margesson: He is certainly not getting any pay.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to his having the same rations as his guards; has he an officer guard or a guard of N.C.O.s and other ranks?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question down, but I think it is a mixed guard.

Mr. Thorne: Why should there be a secret about this man? Should not the public know where he is and what he is doing? Is he not claiming to be a special envoy who ought to be sent home?

Sir W. Davison: We do not want him to be sent home; we want to keep him here.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION COUNCIL.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in


view of the misunderstanding which still exists in Scotland, he will define the functions to be performed by the Scottish Advisory Council after the Reports of inquiry committees have been received; whether the council has yet met; and what progress has been made?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am not aware of any misunderstanding as to the functions of the Council which were set out fully in my statements in the House on nth September. These functions are—

1. To survey the problems likely to arise in post-war Scotland, and
2. To select suitable personnel to conduct any necessary inquiries.

When these inquiries are completed I will naturally consult the Council as to what action they think necessary. The Council met on 29th September. It will meet again this month in Edinburgh.

Mr. Maxton: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question and say what progress has been made? Have the Council yet defined the scope of the inquiry, and have they chosen to study the various subjects?

Mr. Johnston: All I can say is that it will not be very long before some announcement is made.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every member of this Advisory Council is a shell-backed Tory?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: With regard to the consultations which my right hon. Friend has had with the Council, does that mean that he will consult with them in framing the proposals which he will put to the House following upon a report?

Mr. Johnston: It means that the Government are responsible for any proposals they make to the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not this Council, apart from my right hon. Friend, composed of Tories?

FOOD PROSECUTION, GLASGOW.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, the Glasgow Public Health Department prosecuted a retailer for exposing for sale roast pork, canned, which, in the opinion of the city analyst,

was not genuine roast pork; and can he state the terms of the analyst's report?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. The city analyst's report stated that the sample analysed by him did not consist of genuine roast pork (canned), in respect that it contained only 17 per cent., or thereby, of meat, the remainder being composed of filling material, such as cereals and added water.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it outwith the scope of my right hon. Friend's Department to protect the public from having this concoction foisted on them for 2s. 6d. per 7 oz. tin?

Mr. Johnston: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a Question to another Minister later on the Paper.

Mr. McKinlay: Since when did it become the prerogative of the Food Ministry to interfere with the Food and Drugs Act in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has a Question to the Food Ministry later on to-day.

Mr. Kinlay: Again I should like to ask since when it became the prerogative of the Food Ministry to interfere with the Food and Drugs Act in Scotland?

POST-WAR HOSPITAL POLICY.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now give further details as to the Government's post-war hospital policy for Scotland in relation to voluntary and emergency hospitals?

Mr. Johnston: I propose to have consultations at an early date with the various organisations, including the associations of local authorities, concerned with hospital services in Scotland. In the meantime I am not in a position to add anything to the statement made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 9th October.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that voluntary hospitals are an anachronism in a modern world?

EVACUEES (BLAIR CASTLE).

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give an assurance that Glasgow evacuees will


not be moved from Blair Atholl Castle now their present quarters, in order to accommodate boys at a preparatory school; and will he direct Perth County Council to requisition and reserve all accommodation at the castle for evacuees from industrial South-West Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I can assure the hon. Member that the Glasgow children now in Blair Castle will not be removed from the accommodation which they now occupy. With regard to the second part of the Question, before any suggestion was made that any additional accommodation in Blair Castle should be reserved for Glasgow children the West Downs School, whose premises have had to be taken for use as an emergency hospital, had begun negotiations with the Blair Castle trustees with a view to taking over the unoccupied portion of the castle. Until the result of these negotiations is known, I should not feel justified in agreeing that the additional accommodation should be requisitioned.

Mr. McNeil: Does not the Minister agree that, while this school is in some difficulty, since they come from a reception area it must be easier to get alternative accommodation in its own area than to run the risk of depriving children from the heavy industrial districts of such accommodation as exists?

Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are two sides to this Question, and I think that the answer I have given ought to satisfy him that every possible precaution has been taken to ensure that the evacuees presently in Blair Castle shall not be removed.

Sir Cooper Rawson: Why have some of these schools been buffeted about from one part of the country to another? Some of the boys in this school come from Brighton, and they have no continuity of tenure.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MERCHANTS' CHARGES, CAMBERWELL.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the particulars from the local fuel controller for the borough of Camberwell as to overcharging in a number of cases by merchants on which prosecution is advised;

and whether it is intended to proceed with the prosecutions?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): The papers have been referred to the Board of Trade Solicitors Department, who, I understand, propose to take legal proceedings.

HOUSE COAL OFFICERS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the House Coal Officer in his Department is still actively engaged in his business as a coal merchant; that, at a meeting of coal merchants for the No. 29 Division, South-East London, this officer, who was present to explain the Government scheme for the distributive trade, said merchants should realise that the Government is paying for the control of the trade for the trade; and is he satisfied that such organisation is best fitted to safeguard the interests of the consumers?

Mr. Grenfell: I have not been able to trace the statement referred to, either in the minutes of the meeting or otherwise; but I should explain that it is necessary that the house coal officers and their assistants, who are all officers of my Department, should be men of standing with wide experience in the coal distribution trade. They are required, on appointment, to discontinue active participation in their private businesses, but I do not think that it would be either equitable or in the public interest to limit selection to such persons as are prepared, as a condition of appointment, to sever all connection with their private businesses. I am satisfied that these officers are rendering loyal and efficient service to the State.

Mr. Ammon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that four chief officers in his Department are all actively engaged in the trade and are using their position in order to further their interests as against their rivals?

Mr. Grenfell: I should like the hon. Member to give me any evidence of that. I have no evidence that any officer is using his position for the purpose of improving his position in his business or in any other way.

Mr. Ammon: I will take advantage of the first opportunity to raise the matter, and I will give the hon. Member the information.

COLLIERY CANTEENS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of pit-head canteens now operating in Scotland; the number in course of preparation; and whether he is satisfied that the mineowners are giving effective assistance in the setting-up of these canteens?

Mr. Grenfell: Fifty-six colliery canteens are operating in Scotland, and 53 are in course of preparation. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Gallacher: Are not colliery owners in certain parts of Scotland standing in the way of canteen development, and could not the necessary steps be taken to stop such efforts on the part of coalowners?

Mr. Grenfell: I should be glad to hear of any instances. I have no evidence of anything of that kind in Scotland, although there are difficulties in certain other parts of this country.

MINE ACCIDENTS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines what special steps he proposes to take to deal with accidents underground, particularly at the coal face?

Mr. Grenfell: As my hon. Friend knows, the number of fatal accidents from falls at the coal face has caused much concern, and I am taking action to give effect to the proposals which I outlined in an answer recently given to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Eight experienced inspectors, who will hold senior rank, and an additional inspector at headquarters, have been selected and will be at work within a few weeks. They will devote their whole time to the particular problem, under the general guidance, respectively, of the eight divisional inspectors and the Chief Inspector of Mines. The consequent vacancies in the inspectorate will be filled as speedily as possible. Associated with these inspectors in each division will be an informal committee or committees of influential representatives of the different sections of the industry chiefly concerned, namely, the owners, the managers, the deputies and the workmen.

The progress to be made along these lines depends very largely on the measure in which the co-operation I am seeking in those quarters is forthcoming; and I am confident of a full and effective response.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister take the fullest care to have a report made on the work done by these special arrangements? Will he also get out a separate classification for fatal and serious accidents for hand-getting as compared with machine-getting? We may be able to draw some remarkable conclusions from the comparisons.

Mr. Grenfell: I shall ask them to go very closely into the comparison between the risk of accidents in the shield-getting as compared with the hand-getting faces.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister also pay particular attention to the inspectors to see that they have some engineering knowledge which will be useful to them, now that mechanisation has gone so far in many mines? Is not mechanisation one of the reasons for so many accidents?

Mr. Grenfell: I am asking that men of special qualifications shall be appointed for this job, and I hope that these good men will be able to give their full time to the investigation.

Mr. Lawson: Will attention be given to the various kinds of support that are being used at the faces, and to such questions as the class of timber—whether it is as hard as it might be—and whether the position is affected in any way by the increasing use of steel supports?

Mr. Grenfell: All these are highly relevant questions, and I have given very close attention to the whole of this problem. I may say that I have not been able to satisfy myself that any considerable part of the increase in accidents is due to the immaturity of the. timber. Even in places fully supported by steel supports the accident rate has gone up. All these factors will be borne in mind, with other considerations.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and serious accidents during this year and the various causes of the accidents?

Mr. Grenfell: During the first 40 weeks of this year, that is, up to 4th October,


712 persons were killed and 2,208 seriously injured in accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act as compared with 719 killed and 2,475 seriously injured during the corresponding period in 1940. The chief classes of fatal accident this year are 381 from falls of ground, 144 on haulages, 65 from explosions and 67 on the surface. I am circulating the rest of the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

Number of persons killed and seriously injured✶ by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act, in the 40 weeks ended 4th October, 1941.

Place or Cause.
Number of persons killed.
Number of persons seriously injured.


Falls of Ground—




(a) At the Face
329
936


(b) On the Roads
52
110


Haulage and Transport
144
538


Gases, Coal Dust and Fires—




(a) Explosions
65
73


(b) Others
10
5


Machinery
3
42


Other Underground Accidents
42
268


Surface
67
236


Total
712
2,208


✶ Injuries which, because of their nature or severity are, under the terms of Section 80 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, required to be reported to His Majesty's divisional inspectors at the time of their occurrence.

WAR SITUATION (RUSSIA).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the war situation on the Eastern front?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. This must obviously be left to the Russian High Command, who are conducting their great battle. I should not presume to add anything to their communiqués at this juncture.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet throughout the country about the form, the substance and the speed of the assistance rendered to Russia, and in the circumstances will he provide facilities for an early Debate on the subject?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member should not suppose that he has a monopoly of anxieties in these times.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I know that this disquiet and anxiety are shared by others, but may I ask him the Question which I have already put—will he provide facilities for an early Debate?

The Prime Minister: I do not at the present time see any reason at all for an early Debate. I think it might be detrimental to have a discussion on the situation there. I am sure that it would be likely to do more harm than good.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the statement made by Lord Beaverbrook on his return from Moscow is worthy of discussion in this House, and will he not consider having a Debate, even if it is held in secret, so that the House could inform the right hon. Gentleman about the anxiety held in certain quarters? May I ask him his views about that?

The Prime Minister: Of course, in all these matters the House is master. The Government is only master of what it says. But I should deprecate a discussion on this subject at the present time, either in public or in secret.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it unwise for Members of this House to have an opportunity of expressing their views on this matter, but that it is wise for members of the War Cabinet to give gratuitous reassurance to the enemy that they will not be attacked anywhere? Has his attention been called to the statement made by Lord Halifax, and is it undesirable for us to discuss this matter and reassure the country while irresponsible people with bad records reassure the enemy in this way?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Member should go out of his way to abuse our Ambassador in the United States—

Mr. Bevan: No.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member spoke of him as an irresponsible person with a bad record.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly.

The Prime Minister: Well, I call that abuse, and abuse of a man who has a high mission outside this country.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me and my colleagues an opportunity of establishing that charge in an early Debate?

The Prime Minister: I know of no reason—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SUBSIDIES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount paid in subsidies for the last completed financial year and the estimated amount for the next, giving separate figures for those that come under the head of food subsidies?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Subsidies proper for the financial year 1940–41 cost roughly £6,500,000: the estimated cost for the current year is £8,750,000. Expenditure by the Ministry of Food in keeping steady the cost of food was about £80,000,000 in 1940–41 and is estimated at £109,000,000 for 1941–42. To those figures must be added a further sum representing cost borne by the Exchequer of sea transport of food now running at some £20,000,000 per annum.

Mr. Tinker: It was rather difficult to follow what the right hon. Gentleman said, owing to the noise, but may I ask whether he is pursuing his policy of giving subsidies so as to stabilise prices?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I am pursuing the policy which I have already announced.

WAR DAMAGE CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position of an owner of property who has suffered damage to some of his property, through enemy action, to an amount many times in excess of the war damage contribution on the whole of his property, and thereby has a larger claim upon the State than the State has upon the owner; and what arrangements are made under these circumstances for the payment of the war damage contribution?

Sir K. Wood: Under Section 33 of the War Damage Act, 1941, collection of instalments of contribution on damaged property, in respect of which a "value payment" is likely to be made, is to be suspended, and the amount of the "value payment" if it is eventually made, will be reduced by so much of the instalments as has not been paid. In cases where a "cost of works" payment is appropriate in respect of a particular property, collection of the contribution due in respect of that property is to be deferred if and so long as the Inland Revenue Department is satisfied that the property is unfit by reason of the damage. Moreover, collectors of taxes have been instructed that, where sums have been expended by the owner in making good war damage and a claim for the amount expended has been, or is about to be, made to the War Damage Commission, he may, if he so requests, be allowed to defer payment for the time being, to the extent of the amount expended, of instalments due from him on his properties as a whole.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his Answer, may I say that it is no answer to my Question? I ask him again, What is the position of a property owner who has a larger claim against the State than the State has upon him?

Sir K. Wood: I can only repeat the answer which I have given to the hon. Member.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: It is an unsatisfactory answer, and I give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether war damage insurance contributions are being held in a separate fund towards the cost of reinstatement and value payments for properties damaged or destroyed by enemy action?

Sir K. Wood: The War Damage Act, 1941, provides that contributions shall be paid into the Exchequer, and that payments by way of compensation shall be made out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not desirable that these payments should be kept together in one fund so that they will be available as a nucleus from which war damage payments can be promptly made?

Sir K. Wood: That matter was decided by Parliament.

REQUISITIONED PREMISES (COMPENSATION).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the General Claims Tribunal, constituted under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, has yet given an interpretation of the scope of Section 2 (1) (d) of that Act, and, in particular, whether it applies to a loss on sale of stock from requisitioned premises when no storage space is available; and whether he will try to arrange, at the first opportunity, for the issue to be stated to the High Court in the form of a special case by the tribunal?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the tribunal has given no general interpretation of the scope of Section 2 (1, d) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, and the particular point which may hon. Friend raises has not, so far as I know, ever been referred to it. It is open to any claimant to ask the tribunal to state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings.

OVERTIME WAGES (TAXATION).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now reconsidered the question of the taxation of wages paid for overtime; and whether he has any statement to make in view of the serious effect this taxation is having on our war effort?

Sir K. Wood: There is no special taxation of overtime earnings. In so far as the recipients of such earnings are like other members of the community, liable to the additional taxation imposed by the Finance Act, 1941, they will I am sure appreciate that it is not possible at the present time to reduce that burden. A substantial part of the additional tax—in many cases the whole tax—will, as my hon. Friend is aware, be made available as a credit to the taxpayer after the war.

Mr. Kirk wood: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the fact that this is causing serious trouble all over Britain in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, and that one of the biggest employers on the Clyde came down here to see the Minister of Labour with a view to this difficulty being sorted out, in order to get the men to work overtime and finish

one of the most important jobs that we have yet done?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I could not accept that statement. I do not think it is unreasonable that taxation should be paid upon these earnings.

WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (COST-OF-LIVIKG BONUS)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he realises the discontent felt by women members of the Civil Service that, without any reference to dependants, men are getting a larger cost-of-living bonus than they are?

Sir K. Wood: The arrangement by which women employed in the Civil Service receive a lower bonus than men is in general accordance with the practice prevailing in other comparable employments, and was recently confirmed by Award 66✶ of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that long delays frequently occur in the payment of small amounts due by various State Departments to private individuals of limited resources; and whether he will take steps to improve and speed up the procedure in these cases?

Sir K. Wood: Every effort is made by Government Departments to avoid delay in making payments of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have the details, I will gladly have it investigated by the appropriate Department.

Mr. Maxton: I have hundreds of cases in mind, but I want the Chancellor to inquire not into the particular cases but into the whole system. Can he not devise some system by which a. person who has a claim upon the War Office or the Ministry of Health receives the money inside a month and does not have to wait for six months or a year?

Sir K. Wood: I could not accept the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. If he has hundreds of cases, perhaps he would send some of them to me so that I can have them examined.

Sir H. Williams: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that if any of us write to him or any other


Minister we shall have an answer within a fortnight?

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister not think it wrong that a housewife has to wait six months for payment of billeting allowances?

Sir K. Wood: I shall be glad to have particulars of such cases.

WAR DAMAGE ACT, 1941.

Major Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to introduce an amending Bill to the War Damage Act, 1941, in the near future?

Sir K. Wood: I am not yet in a position to state when an amending Bill will be introduced. It would be premature to introduce it until we have had time to observe the working of the existing Act and to consider such points of difficulty as may arise.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered a resolution sent on to him from a mass meeting of old age pensioners at Atherton, Lancashire, calling upon the Government to raise the weekly pension from 10s. to 30s. and to lower the age to 60 years; and what provision can be made to meet this claim?

Sir K. Wood: I have considered the resolution referred to, but I cannot add to the reply given on 17th July by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend think it is possible to meet this claim unless people pay Income Tax on their overtime?

SMALL SAVINGS.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain the reduction by 16 per cent. in the volume of small savings during June, July and August, 1941, compared with the same months of 1940, in view of the fact that the aggregate of earnings had steadily increased during the year; and whether he will take adequate measures to provide that a satisfactory proportion of the increased earnings shall be placed at the service of the State?

Sir K. Wood: The reduction, which my hon. Friend over-estimates, was mainly due to the fact that the 1940 figure was swollen by the results of a very successful National Savings Week held throughout the country and by re-investment of redemption moneys for the 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan. Small savings in August and September this year exceeded those of the corresponding months of 1940 by 24 per cent. The maximum volume of savings remains necessary, and every effort must be made to this end.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear in his reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT to what investments he is referring? The figures which I have given to him are correct, and if I were permitted to do so, I could (mote from them in the House now.

PETROL RATIONING.

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Secretary for Petroleum, whether, he will give an assurance that before the reduction in the basic ration of petrol for goods vehicles comes into force, steps will have been taken to prevent the use of petrol by private motor-cars in connection with such events as dog and horse-racing?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The use of supplementary allowances for the purposes mentioned is illegal, and steps have already been taken in the direction urged by my hon. Friend by the recent reduction in the basic ration.

Lieutenant Butcher: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask, if petrol can be used in this way, why it is necessary for constituents to have to invoke the aid of their Member of Parliament to obtain additional supplementary rations for the delivery of food in agricultural districts?

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the Minister take effective steps to see that petrol used for joy-riding shall be stopped?

Lieutenant Butcher: May I have an answer to my Question?

Mr. Lloyd: It should be put to the appropriate Minister.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not possible to allow people to use the small basic ration for their own amusement?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against Laurence Gray, of 111, Cambridge Avenue, Gidea Park, Essex, for unlawfully obtaining rationed meat for household consumption without authority of the Minister of Food; and whether he intends to take stronger preventive action in future?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Laurence Cray, whose business is the sale of horse flesh for human consumption, was detected in possession of a considerable quantity of beef in sacks. He was convicted of obtaining rationed meat unlawfully at Stratford and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and fined £100. In reply to the last part of' my hon. Friend's Question, I see no reason for taking any further action in connection with this case.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the case of Stanley James Eaton, who was charged at the East Ham Police Court, on Thursday, 2nd October, with having five quarters and five hindquarters of beef unfit for human consumption and for trying to sell it to the general public; and what action he intends taking to prevent such offences in future?

Major Lloyd George: The time available since my hon. Friend put down his Question has not been sufficient to enable me to make the necessary inquiries. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have received a report.

EMPIRE WINES.

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the shortage of foreign wines in this country, he will consider developing the importation of and sale here of Empire wines, as far as circumstances will permit, in order to have an established trade therein after the war as well as supplying present requirements?

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on the 2nd of this month.

CANNED PORK (PROSECUTION, GLASGOW).

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, is being violated in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland, by the sale of meat products in cans and other containers, which are being sold under a warranty as to the contents which is false; that the warranty is issued by wholesalers outwith the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts, and is not given by the producers; and what steps he proposes to take to protect retailers and consumers alike?

Major Lloyd George: If, as I presume, my hon. Friend is referring to the case about which he asked me a Question on 8th October, my reply must be that my Noble Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the action to be taken in such cases and that in due course I will communicate their decision to my hon. Friend.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VISITS TO IRELAND).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused permission to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to visit Ireland, for purposes arising out of his Parliamentary duties; and whether this is the general policy of the Government in regard to Members of Parliament?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I regret the necessity of hindering any persons from travelling to Ireland on legitimate business, but war conditions have made it essential to reduce the volume of traffic and to restrict permits to cases where the applicant is travelling on business, of national importance or is travelling to his home. The hon. Member for Shettleston made two applications on two differing grounds, but in neither case did the reasons which he gave for the visit enable my right hon. Friend to hold that his application could properly be granted.

Mr. Maxton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a general rule that Members of Parliament cannot go to different parts of the British Isles to find out matters connected with their work in


this House; is it a general rule that applies to everybody, or is it a particular rule applied to the hon. Member for Shettleston?

Mr. Peake: The general rule is as I have stated in my answer, namely, that the reason for the visit must be that it is of national importance or for domestic purposes. We apply exactly the same principle to a Member of Parliament as we do to members of the general public, and if any hon. Member obtains support for his proposed visit, if another Government Department is prepared to certify that it is in the national interest, his permit would, of course, be granted.

Sir H. Williams: Surely it is in the national interest that a Member of Parliament should have free access to any part of this country, without challenge in any way?

Sir I. Albery: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all those Members of this House who have recently travelled to Ireland have been travelling in connection with matters of national importance?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. They have all had the support of one or another of the Government Departments.

Mr. Maxton: If an hon. Member of this House wants to travel to Ireland on business which is not connected with a Government Department but which is connected with his rights and duties as a Member of this House, to which Department docs he apply for support for his visit?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member for Shettleston put forward two applications on two different grounds. I do not know which of these two applications the hon. Member says is on the ground of national importance, and perhaps he would be good enough to inform me. I do not want to discuss the private affairs of the hon. Member for Shettleston in public, but if the hon. Member challenges me, I am quite prepared to give the grounds of the application and to state that they are not in the national interest.

Mr. Maxton: Was it not legitimate business for an hon. Member of this House to go to Northern and Southern Ireland to find out the circumstances which justified the detention of Mr. Cahir Healy, a member of the Ulster Parliament?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend did not hold that it was in the national interest—

Mr. Maxton: But he has no right to say.

Mr. Peake: —for Members of Parliament to travel to Ireland to conduct private investigations into matters of this kind.

Sir H. Williams: Am I to understand from my hon. Friend that Ministers are now denying hon. Members the right of pursuing investigations as to the way in which Ministers are conducting their Departments?

Mr. Peake: The proper course for Mr. Healy to pursue would be to make an application to go before the Advisory Committee. The purpose of conducting private investigations into the circumstances affecting the detention of Mr. Healy does not justify a journey to Ireland.

Mr. Maxton: Do I understand the position to be that the Home Secretary imprisons a British citizen and then refuses to permit a Member of this House to investigate whether that imprisonment is legitimate or not?

Mr. Peake: It is quite obvious that we cannot make exceptions from these general rules in the cases of Members of Parliament.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Peake: If we were to permit the hon. Member for Shettleston to travel for this purpose, we should have to be equally prepared to allow any members of the general public to do so.

Hon. Members:: No.

Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. I wish to give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have any power to protect the rights of Members of Parliament in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: On a question of this kind I have no such power.

Mr. Neil Maclean: On a point of principle, is it a fact that a Member of Parliament, if he is asked to make inquiries


into a grievance by an individual who looks upon him as one who is likely to be useful in removing this grievance, is to be prevented from going to the particular place to find out from private inquiries there the justification of the individual making the complaint?

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that this House vested in the Home Secretary action under Regulation I8B with judicial powers, and that it is not open to members of the public to inquire into his action unless the matter is raised by a Motion in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will not give a general Ruling on this question.

OFFICES OR PLACES OF PROFIT UNDER THE CROWN.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 120].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide further facilities for the marriage of members of His Majesty's Forces (including Women's Services) during the war period and to amend the Marriage (Naval, Military and Air Force Chapels) Act, 1932."

MARRIAGE (MEMBERS OF HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time, to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill, as circulated to this House, to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to agriculture (including bee-keeping) and agricultural land, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such additional Exchequer contributions and grants as may become payable by reason of provisions, whether retrospective or not—

(i) postponing to the end of July, nineteen hundred and forty-four, as respects lime and as respects expenditure by drainage authorities, the dates specified in sections one and fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, as the dates before which cost or expenses must have been incurred in order to qualify for Exchequer grants or contributions;
(ii) extending section fifteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, and section sixteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to expenditure in connection with the supply of water to agricultural land;
(iii) extending section fourteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, to land within any drainage district and to schemes estimated to cost not more than ten pounds per acre;

(b) of advances to drainage boards in respect of expenditure towards which it appears that a grant will be made under section fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1937, or section fourteen of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940;
(c) of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State in acquiring land possession of which has been taken under Defence Regulations, and of any additional payments in. respect of war damage to land so acquired which are ascribable to the extension of section sixteen of the War Damage Act, 1941, to that land;
(d) of any expenses incurred (whether before or after the passing of the said Act of the present Session) by the said Minister in connection with bee diseases or pests;
(e) of any increase in the grants or expenses authorised by section twenty-nine of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament which is ascribable to the extension of that section to land which is being injured or is in danger of being injured by such a failure of the owner or occupier thereof as is mentioned in that section, being a failure in relation to other land in his ownership or occupation."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment as to period for making Exchequer grants towards land drainage expenditure.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Loftus: I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that this Clause extends the powers and, I think, the expenditure of catchment boards. I feel that the Committee, before passing this Clause, is entitled to some assurance that this expenditure will be efficient and economical and to some assurance about the control of the expenditure of these catchment boards. At present it appears to me that there is a lack of control over such expenditure. I speak as one who has been a member of a catchment board. I would like my right hon. Friend to explain exactly what control his Department exercises at the present time. It is an astonishing position that the catchment boards should work, as it were, on their own. There is no check or control either by county councils or by county borough councils over their expenditure or their methods. It is impossible even to raise such matters at a county council meeting. We all desire to see the powers given which this Clause authorises, but we also desire to see that the money is expended properly.
The answer may be given that such expenditure is controlled by my right hon. Friend's Department, but I confess that from instances I have known I am not satisfied that it is adequate control. I can give one case in point, that of the catchment board for East Suffolk in regard to very heavy expenditure of roughly £30,000 on the drainage of the River Blythe. I was on the catchment board when the scheme was initiated. We got the very best expert advice, the best harbour engineer in Great Britain, and the scheme was authorised and approved. Then the plans were altered, I think by the Ministry of Agriculture. The original plan by this eminent harbour engineer


had what every harbour entrance on the East Coast has, an overlapping North pier.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): May I ask the hon. Member whether the case to which he now refers is on a main river or whether it is work done inside an internal drainage board area?

Mr. Loftus: It is on the River Blythe, in Suffolk.

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that the hon. Member is referring to catchment board expenditure upon main rivers, when, in fact, Clause 2 refers to internal drainage board areas.

Mr. Loftus: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I will not pursue that instance, but I will give him a minor case which is covered by the Clause. Within a couple of miles of my house to-day 300 acres are liable to be flooded. All that is required to prevent this is about 150 yards of wood piling with faggots behind, and clay. Instead of doing that simple and inexpensive scheme, I understand that, under orders from my hon. Friend's Department, they are building a new wall right across the marshes. Three excavators are working at the present time, with great expenditure on what men with any practical knowledge would say will be hopeless as a preventive of erosion and flooding. Here is a case which we cannot criticise on the county council, and that is the reason why I am pressing for some assurance that the Ministry of Agriculture will really see that the heavy expenditure of these boards is efficient and economical, and conducted in accordance with the best advice. Apropos of that, I would add that possibly local men who have worked on these banks and whose fathers and grandfathers have done. so, have far better knowledge of the facts than many engineers who have high qualifications. I press that before we agree to this Clause we may have an assurance about the control of expenditure, and further, that the Minister should consider giving the county councils some power to control and check, or at least to discuss in detail, the expenditure of these catchment boards.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: This Bill will extend the activities of

catchment boards, and the State is to make a 50 per cent. grant towards expenditure, for which we are very grateful. But I am concerned with the remaining 50 per cent. Who is going to meet that liability? Under the Land Drainage Act the catchment boards were set up, and their expenditure was met by two sources of income, one a precept on the rate of the general upland area limited to 2d. in the pound, and the other a precept on the internal districts within that catchment board area. If the expenditure of the catchment board exceeded 2d. in the pound on the general upland area, the internal districts in that area would have to bear that extra liability. I am appealing on behalf of the internal district drainage boards that they shall not have their liability extended because of the extension of the activities of the catchment boards.

Mr. T. Williams: Replying first to the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), the question raised would have been more appropriate on Clause 5. The expenditure to which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) refers is abnormal, and will not be undertaken unless it can be proved that there will be a substantial increase of food production in that area following the carrying-out of the work. I have no knowledge of the case to which he has referred. If he is willing to provide us with particulars, I shall be very happy to look into the matter and see what can be done.

Mr. Loftus: I understand that one reason given for this extravagant work is that they cannot get the wood to build 150 yards of piling.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to supply me with particulars, we will have the matter looked into at the earliest possible moment. With regard to economy in the carrying out of drainage schemes, I would say that the catchment boards are very largely made up of representatives of county councils and the county council in many cases, more or less dominates the catchment board. To that extent, the representatives of the county council have a very large say in any scheme being carried out at the request of the war agricultural committee.

Mr. Loftus: I attended my county council last Tuesday and asked whether there was any possible method of


criticising the action of the catchment board and I was informed there was none whatever.

Mr. Williams: It may well be that the representatives of the county council on the catchment board would not criticise, in open council, the actions of the catchment board but it is obvious that the county council have so many representatives on the catchment board that they wield a heavy influence and are very largely responsible for work being either undertaken or not undertaken as the case may be. I assure my hon. Friend and the Committee that we are very anxious that the money expended on any drainage scheme, whether on minor works or on main rivers, shall be expended to the best advantage. We are desirous to produce the maximum results for the minimum expenditure. What we are particularly anxious about at this moment is that we shall have drainage over as wide an area as possible, consistent with a large increase in the food production of this country and I hope that nothing that is said will tend to prevent the continuance of the good work of the past two years.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Extension of powers as to drainage schemes.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out from "or", to "of", in line 44.
This Clause is an extension of powers to carry out drainage schemes within an internal drainage board area, but a proviso in sub-section (1) prevents schemes being carried out by catchment boards within a drainage district except with the consent of the drainage board. Without this Amendment, we find that the catchment board might be prevented from carrying out this work by the internal drainage board simply doing nothing. They could decline either to give or withhold consent and to that extent could delay the work. If these words are deleted, then if the catchment board does not receive the consent or refusal of the drainage board, they will be in a position to refer the matter to the Minister at once for his decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Annesley Somerville: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Where by reason of the increased cost of labour (including transport) or any other cause outside the control of a catchment board the expenditure of such catchment board in preparing and carrying out any scheme approved by the Minister under Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, exceeds the amount of the expenditure as certified by the Minister, the Minister may defray the whole or part of such excess out of moneys provided by Parliament.
It may well be found that if work is carried out under this Clause the total amount expended will exceed the original estimate. In considering this matter yesterday the Thames Conservancy appeared to believe that the whole of the extra cost would fall upon the owner, and in order to guard against that possibility, this Amendment is being moved. I submit it on behalf of the Thames Conservancy in order to get an explanation of the position.

Sir Joseph Lamb: This is a very important matter. The Amendment raises the question of the money to be expended and of who, in the end, is to find it. Under the old Act there was a limit of £5, but now we are increasing that to £10, and I would like a guarantee that the £10 value represents all that we shall be asked, later on, to pay. It is a question of whether this work is to be done expeditiously and with the us.; of a reasonable amount of labour or whether it is to be done in an expensive way. If it is to be done in an expensive way, then it is going to involve an additional charge upon the owner or occupier and what it really means in the end is a charge upon food production. We have to look at the matter from that point of view. I would like a guarantee that reasonable charges only will be laid upon the land and that we shall not have imposed, in perpetuity, a charge which may increase the cost of the production of food.

Mr. T. Williams: I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that money will not be unnecessarily thrown away on drainage schemes. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) the answer is that there is no need for it. The amount of the grant is fixed in relation to the net cost of the scheme—as it must be of necessity —and net cost can be ascertained only


after the work has been completed. In other words, whatever is the ultimate cost of the scheme, 50 per cent. grant will be paid and nobody can, in advance, say exactly, to the last pound, what will be the expenditure on any scheme. We can only undertake to say that no scheme will receive the approval and consent of the Department which seems to us to be an imposition either upon the land itself or upon the cost of the food of the people.

Sir A. Somerville: I understand from the explanation that the extra cost is to be divided between the Treasury and the owner, each paying 50 per cent., and if I have that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: Before my hon. Friend does so, may I say that I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary? I do not think that he has given any guarantee, in principle, that this expenditure is not going to be extraordinary and unremunerative expenditure, or that those concerned will have a say as to what work shall be done or how it shall be done. The owner or occupier who will, ultimately, bear the burden, to the extent at least of 50 per cent. of the extra cost, is to have no say whatever. I am aware that under the Third Schedule there is provision for arbitration but there is to be only a single arbitrator. We are putting ourselves entirely in the hand of one individual, and we are given no guarantee that charges may not ultimately be placed on the land which will, as I have said, increase the cost of the production of the food of the people.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, because, even though Clause 5 will extend the powers to carry out drainage schemes within the internal drainage boards' areas, the procedure in no way differs from the procedure in the past.

Sir J. Lamb: If my right hon. Friend will refer to the Bill itself, he will see that there is cause for anxiety.

Sir A. Somerville: Having had my right hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, after "shall," to insert

until the expiration of three years from the end of the war period.
This Clause extends the power of the catchment boards which carry out works under the Act passed last year. On a number of occasions already there has been disagreement as to whether a scheme carried out by the catchment board is the best for the area. The Act of last year makes it possible for the board to carry out this work without consulting the owner of the land on which the scheme is to be carried out. One feels that that is undesirable and can be justified only as a war measure, and that any extension of the powers should be limited to the war period.

Mr. T. Williams: As has already been explained, this Clause will extend the power of catchment boards to carry out certain drainage schemes. Under the Act of 1930, extended by this Clause, the Bill enables catchment boards to carry out works other than works on rivers. Under the Land Drainage Acts, catchment boards have no power to carry out works except on a main river. But existing works should be maintained. Otherwise the State will be wasting a good deal of money, and this Clause gives power to catchment boards to continue to maintain the works that they have carried through. This proposal is an innovation, but, I think, a very necessary innovation. My right hon. Friend sees no objection, however, to the limitation of such maintenance to a period of three years after the war, since we are all hopeful that these war Acts dealing with drainage will become unnecessary long before the expiration of the three years. We are willing, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 22, at the end, insert:
being expenses incurred before the expiration of three years from the end of the war period."—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir E. Shepperson: I want to raise a point upon which the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was not quite satisfactory. It relates to the extended activities of the catchment boards for improving the drainage of a district. I want an assurance that an increased burden will


not be placed upon town districts within the catchment area, and then they will not have their rates increased for improvements when they have had no voice in the matter.

Mr. T. Williams: I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asks for. Any expenditure that an internal drainage board carries out will have to be met by that internal drainage board, and owners or occupiers outside the area of that internal board will not be involved in any expense whatever.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Recovery of expenses of certain drainage works.)

Mr. Pym: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where, on the termination of a tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or become recoverable by virtue of a notice served under the said Third Schedule as applied by this section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that all or any of the work in respect of which the payment has been or will be made was rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award the landlord compensation equal to so much of the sum paid or payable as was attributable to the doing of that work.
Provided that, where any agreement is made between the landlord and tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this sub-section.
For the purposes of any arbitration under this sub-section, a certificate by the Minister that such part of any sum paid or payable as aforesaid as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the doing of work so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
The Clause is worded in almost similar terms to a provision in the Act of 1940. Under this Clause the Minister may recover from the owner the cost of work which he has done in the exercise of powers conferred upon him by the Defence Regulations. It may be that some of that work would be the responsibility of the occupier. The Amendment provides that

on the termination of a tenancy the arbitrator shall take into account such payments in respect of work which was the liability of the occupier and make a simple adjustment in the outgoing valuation. The point is exactly that which was met in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940.

Mr. T. Williams: The provisions contained in the Amendment appear in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940. We see no objection to the Amendment, since any sums to be recovered from the tenant would have to be decided by arbitration.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Tate: Under the Bill it is obvious that when the Minister has done any drainage work he can recover the cost from any owner whose land has been increased in value by the work. I cannot understand how the increased value of the land will be assessed unless it can be ensured that the produce: of that land may be sown at a profit. The machinery for settling this is contained in the Third Schedule, but it is absolutely certain that the land which is said to have been increased in value will cover a considerable area and that different people in that area may be in entire disagreement as to whether the value of their land has increased. They will have to pay for the execution of work which may be done on an extremely extravagant scale, and their position will be very precarious in the absence of any guarantee that after the war production from their land will be on a paying basis.

Sir E. Shepperson: I previously put a question to the Minister which should be raised on this Clause. Drainage works are undertaken by a catchment board, and the interest on the cost of such new works will be charged to the tenants of the land. I would like to know whether, when interest on the cost of new works is charged to the tenant, it will be recognised by the Inland Revenue as a natural farm cost or whether it will have to be; borne by the tenant as a capital charge.

Mr. T. Williams: The answer to the question of my hon. Friend is that this would be regarded as in the nature of


capital expenditure. Payments to be made by owners of land in the reimbursement of the cost of carrying out drainage schemes or works for the improvement of grassways over fenlands would not be deductable in computing the income of the owners for taxation purposes. The position would be the same whether the owner is a landlord or an owner-occupier.

Sir E. Shepperson: I understand that 50 per cent. of the cost falling on the tenant or owner is to be borne as a capital sum.

Mr. Williams: According to the Inland Revenue, that is the conclusion to be drawn.

Sir E. Shepperson: In view of the very small amount that will be left to the owner or farmer after having paid all the taxes, the fact that he has to bear this additional sum will, I fear, largely hamper his activities.

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that my hon. Friend cannot be aware of the full contents of the Bill, otherwise he would observe that the owner need not put down any money in the early stages, and that my right hon. Friend has power to advance the total cost of the whole works. You only commence to recover from the landlord at a certain stated period after the work is completed. Therefore, it is an advance that we are making. Where schemes are held up because of the fear of the body carrying out the work that they may not have funds at their disposal, the total sum can be advanced and the work completed. I think that my hon. Friend will see that we are doing all we can to help willing landowners to have their land definitely improved.

Mrs. Tate: The Parliamentary Secretary has talked a lot, but he has not answered my point in the very smallest degree. The unfortunate owner is to have his land nominally improved, and the Government are going to come along and, with all the generosity in the world, advance the cost. After a number of years the Government will come along and say "Having increased your land in value, we are now going to reclaim from you repayment of the cost of this expenditure." [Interruption.] That is what I understood the Minister to say. Well, then, 50 per cent. of the cost. As we have had already proved only too clearly by bitter experience, we have no guarantee that this work will be done in

an economical manner. Therefore, 50 per cent. of the cost is not by any means the lure it might otherwise be. The owner of the land may find himself compelled to provide his 50 per cent. of the cost when the produce of the land has in actual fact decreased in value. We have no proof whatever that land which has increased in value to-day will provide' produce which has increased in value after the war, when, it may be, the owner will have to begin to pay 50 per cent. of the cost. I really call this an exceedingly hot bit of work.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: When you come to value the improvement in the land, is not the matter put into the hands of an arbitrator? If the price of the produce has not increased, the arbitrator will take that into account and will therefore not give the landowner the whole of the money to which he would be entitled if it had increased.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has raised an important point, especially in the low-lying lands where there is a difficulty with regard to drainage work and the expenditure may be very considerable indeed, and, in fact, where the whole nature of the soil of the land, and the crop which can be produced from that land, will be entirely altered by the activities of the National Board. I feel that there is something in what my hon. Friend has said. You cannot possibly compare the value of one crop against the value of the other when you do not know the value of either of them.

Sir J. Lamb: Where the word "value" is used, does it mean agricultural value?

Mr. T. Williams: I should really hate to be charged, as I have already been charged by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), with talking a lot, as I am usually so quiet. I would like to say to the hon. Lady that I do not think that her fears need really exist. No scheme will be undertaken unless the county war executive committee think that by undertaking any such scheme there will be a substantial increase in the value of the land for agricultural purposes.

Brigadier-General Brown: It does not say that.

Sir J. Lamb: What about the agricultural value?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at page 4, Sub-section (1, b) of the Bill, he will find that it says:
in any case may be recovered from the owners of land, the value of which for agri

Division No. 21.]
AYES.



Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Harmon, Sir P. J. H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Harland, H. P.
Pym, L. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Ammon, C. G.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Attlee, Rt. Han. C. R.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (SI. M.)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Reid, J. S. C (Hillhead)


Barr, J.
Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Rickards, G. W.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Horabin, T. L.
Ridley, G.


Beechman, N. A.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (H'okn'y, N.)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Bower, Cotndr. R. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Salt, E. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
 Hume, Sir G. H.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Brooks, H.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Selley, H. R.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Silkin, L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Kirkwood, D.
Simmonds, O. E.


Channon, H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Christie, J. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S.


Collindridge, F.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lyons, A. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craven-Ellis, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F.
McKinlay, A. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McNeil, H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
 Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macnamara, Lt. Col. J. R. J.
Thorne, W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Maitland, Sir A.
Tinker, J. J.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Touche, G. C.


Dobbie, W.
Wander, G. le M.
Train, Sir J.


Doland, G. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Donner, Flight-Lieut. P. W.
Malior, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Drewe, C.
Messer, F.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mills. Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, W. R. (Most Side)
Milner, Major J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Watt, Lieut.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. J. T. C.
 Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)
 Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Munro, p.
Wedgwood, Fit. Hon. J. C.


Fildes, Sir H.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Foot, D. M.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
White, Sir Dymoke (Faroham)


Frankel. D.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Wickham, Lt-Col. E. T. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gammans, L. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)
Owen, Major G.
Wilmot, John


Gledhill, G.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W.


Goldie, N. B.
Parker, J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Peake, O.
Woodburn, A.


Griffiths, j. (Llanelly)
Peat, C. U.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Hannah, I. C.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Boulton and Mr. Grimston.




NOES


MacLaren, A.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rothschild, J. A. de
Stakes, R. R.
Mrs. Tate and Sir Joseph Lamb


Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. I was in the Select Committee when the

cultural purposes will be increased by the doing of the work.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181, Noes, 5.

Division bells sounded, and on coming into the House I found that I was too late to get into the Division Lobby. I was


going to vote "No." May I ask you whether the time allowed for a Division in these precincts is precisely the same as it was in the other place?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I allowed two minutes between the first call and the second call, and after the second call, I allowed an extra minute, that is to say, five minutes. I thought this would give plenty of time, but I was keeping my eye open, and if I had seen further Members coming in, I would have extended the time further.

Mr. Maxton: I am sorry you did not see me.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provision as to ways over fen-lands not in any internal drainage district.)

Mr. Pym: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section, and of the Third Schedule to this Act as applied by this section, whether, and the amount by which, the value for agricultural purposes of any land will be increased by the doing of the work, due regard shall be had to the provisions of the two last preceding subsections.
In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, where cost and maintenance have been charged in a certain way the arbitrator is instructed to take notice of that award in arbitrating upon the value of the land. The purpose of my Amendment is simply to place land brought within the scope of this Clause in the same position as similar land which is covered by the previous Act.

Mr. T. Williams: The words in this Amendment are similar to those in Section 2, Sub-section (11), of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, in regard to the recovery of the costs of improving ways over fen-lands not in internal drainage districts. It seems reasonable that the same provisions should apply here, and therefore, we accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacLaren: I think it is time this nonsense stopped. The insertion of the words in this Amendment is contemplated simply because they appeared in another Bill. What is meant by the phrase "value for agricul

tural purposes"? Is there anyone in the Government, or outside it, who can define what the phrase means? The rental value of the land is affected, whether the land be used for agricultural purposes or has houses built on it, but merely to specify some particular value of land and call it agricultural value is sheer humbug and nonsense. The Division which we had a short time ago brought to the surface the utter vagueness of the mentality of the Committee on questions of land value. We were told that the value of the land would be affected by the cost of vegetables sold after the war. Probably it is quite a feasible assumption that after the war the price of agricultural produce will go down. The landowner, or the tenant farmer, may find himself in the position of being faced with a 50 per cent. charge for an improvement and of not being able to recover it on the price he receives for his products. What does my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mean when he gets up and gives the Committee an assurance that there is such a phrase in the Bill as "value for agricultural purposes"?

Mr. T. Williams: I mean value for agricultural purposes.

Mr. MacLaren: Suppose that it is value for anything else? Is the value of land to be ascertained merely according to the function it is performing? Is the value of the land to be determined by the function it performs, or its value on sale, irrespective of its function? That is a fair question to anyone on the Front Bench or on the back benches. Will the hon. Gentleman who so slyly moved the Amendment rise in his place and define what he means? Are we to understand that we have before us a Bill in which the Government themselves have no clear idea as to what they are doing, and therefore, are prepared to accept in an Amendment language that has no meaning, simply because that language appeared in a previous Act? As I understand the Bill, if it means anything, it means that some improvements will be effected by the Government. The Government will say that certain land is not being properly used, is under water, or is being badly farmed, and they will coerce the owner or the user of the land to put it to its best use, for agricultural purposes, I suppose. The Government will effect certain improvements in the


land and will charge the owner or the tenant 50 per cent. of the cost. If this is done with any sane view as to future development, the net result will be to increase the rental value of the land, the value which the landowner will expect to get from a tenant as a result of the newly-added improvements. What has that to do with agriculture? Nothing. Therefore, I want to make a protest. A joke is a joke, but when one sees Parliament and the Government continuing this kind of joke, it has to be stopped, because there are thinking people in the country who wonder at times what we are doing in the House when we use language that has no meaning.
In this Bill we are either talking about the increased selling value of land or we are not. Once you attach your assessment of the value of land to its functions, the farmer or grower can come along later and say, "It is true that these improvements have been effected, but I cannot secure the necessary amount of money to cover the charge of these improvements out of the sale of my products." You are landed, because you have fixed yourself to this very stupid idea that the value will be determined according to the function of land. It is laughable—indeed, the whole Bill is laughable—for intelligent Members of this House of Commons who really understand what they are talking about to see those who are handling the Bill sitting soberly on the Front Bench without the faintest, childlike idea of what they are talking about. If there is any doubt or any idea in the back of the mind of the Mover of the Amendment that I am incorrect, I hope he will get up and clear the atmosphere, because already he has got away with two very subtle Amendments over which there has been no protest. We have now come to this vital issue, and I want to know from the Government whether the increase in value attaching to this land as a result of national expenditure is to be recouped by the State irrespective of the functions to which the land is put. If that is so, why is it necessary to put all this nonsense about agricultural purposes in the Bill?

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps I should invite my hon. Friend the. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to read the marginal heading of the Clause. It reads:

Provisions as to ways over fen-lands not in any internal drainage district.
If he had read the Bill very carefully, I am quite sure he would have understood that we were dealing with agricultural land used exclusively for agricultural purposes. We are dealing with this land because it was known that without roads it could not produce in such prolific quantities. When he asked me what is the value of land for agricultural purposes, it is quite clear that he himself replied to the question. The improvement in the value is determined by the rent that any landowner can charge to a would-be tenant farmer who would use the land for agricultural purposes—it is "agricultural purposes" throughout the Clause and the Bill. I suggest that the process is very simple. If the Government had done nothing, we should not have been producing food in the areas in which this work has been carried out. For instance, the growing of sugar beet was impossible prior to schemes being carried out; to-day we are producing very good crops of sugar beet, and to that extent we are increasing our stocks for the people of this country.
If the owner is called upon to make a contribution towards the expense incurred, quite clearly there is only one source from which he can secure redress, and that is the tenant. The tenant has only one source of redress, and that is by selling his produce. I am quite convinced that Clause 8 is justifiable, as well as the whole of the Bill. To any hon. Member who sits down and tries to understand the Bill, I think the matter will be clearly understood and will be seen to be sensible. I suggest to the hon. Member that to import non-arable land or non-agricultural land into our discussion on this Clause is strictly besides the point, because the Clause deals with roads within certain areas which make it possible to improve productivity. The Clause is very simple and clear, and it is extremely desirable. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will see the wisdom from the point of view of food production, of supporting the Clause.

Earl Winterton: I rise to support what my hon. Friend has just said, because I think it is high time that the somewhat high-flown idea of the hon. Member for


Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who suffers from the delusion that everyone in the House is wrong and that he is always right on this subject, should be redressed. Some people talk of single taxes, but I talk of single-mindedness. The hon. Member seems to be single-minded, and I think he was very unfair in regard to those sitting on the Front Bench. King Charles's head looms up in every speech the hon. Member makes. The hon. Member suggests that this is an entirely novel principle. It is nothing of the sort. It has been adopted in almost every Crown Colony and in most of the Dominions. From my own experience, I know of millions of acres of land in the Dominions and the Colonies where a similar situation has arisen. Land may be of the richest character, of rich black chocolate soil, but it is absolutely useless without communications and drainage, because you cannot get the produce away. This situation has happened again and again, and a provision exactly similar to this Clause has been brought in whereby the owners of the land, whether the Government or private individuals, have to contribute to the cost of improvement. Where improvement has been effected, it is the Government or the private individuals who benefit. There is nothing novel about it. Many believe that if land is good land, it is valuable. Unfortunately that is not so, because if there is no drainage or communications it is useless for growing produce. I must apologise to the Committee for having lectured them in this way, but I should not have done so if the hon. Member for Burslem had not delivered his lecture and suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary was wholly incompetent.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the Committee that we are not now discussing the whole of the Clause but a rather limited Amendment.

Sir E. Shepperson: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has sought after a certain amount of knowledge. He has asked what we mean by the value of agricultural land. I will tell him in a very few words. If the receipts on agricultural land are £10 per acre and the costs are £9 per acre, there is £1 gross profit, making the value of that land £20 10s., the fact is that it requires a certain amount of money to make the impassable roads passable.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be as well if we discussed the Amendment now and the Clause afterwards.

Mr. MacLaren: I wish to discuss the words in this Amendment. The Noble Lord would have done better to have applied himself to the Amendment instead of giving me a curtain lecture. I have been many years in the House, and I have watched the gyrations of the Noble Lord. Sometimes I wonder how he is able to fit into any part of the House. He has a very easy way of changing his opinions to suit his advantage in politics. I am sorry to have wasted so much time on the Noble Lord.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member has made a personal attack on me and says I have changed my political opinions in accordance with my advantage. Will he define exactly what he means by that malicious and untrue statement?

Mr. MacLaren: I am sorry that we have wasted time in discussing personalities. The next time you get up to discuss something that is before the House, perhaps you will defend yourself and never mind the Government. It will be a sad day for the Government when they have to wait on your defence.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has accused me of changing my political opinions in accordance with what advantaged me, and I have given him an opportunity of withdrawing that accusation. I asked him to explain it, and he has refused to do so, and I ask that he shall be asked to withdraw it.

The Deputy-Chairman: All sorts of accusations are made in Debate, and we have to put up with them.

Mr. MacLaren: The point here is that certain improvements have to be effected on the land. I agree that if land is derelict and is not performing any useful function, it is to the advantage of the community that it should by some means or other be put to its proper use. We are told that the Government must come along and spend money in making improvements so as to facilitate the


agricultural use of the land. I am not disagreeing with that. It was suggested from the Government side of the Committee that I am trying to inject into the Debate something of an urban conception of the value of land. Is this simple elementary fact unknown, that the rental value of land, whether in the middle of the City of London or in an agricultural district, is what a tenant will pay for its use? If it is the same thing that we are talking about, let us be clear about it. What we are discussing here is the rental value of land and what the landowner expects to get for it if he rents it or sells it, capitalising his rent, and he is made more secure by this means at the national expense. Therefore you are not talking about the function of the land, you are talking about the realisable rent, and the landlord will get it whether it is used for building or for growing beet sugar.
I am protesting against this loose language in the Bill, that we are dealing with a value which apparently is agricultural. It is not. It is land value—site value—and the site value is determined by the demand made for the use of the site, whether for farming or for anything else. I am not protesting against your doing your best to improve the value of the land, but there are other Clauses coming along under which the Government are proposing to buy land and dispose of it after improving it, and, prior to these Clauses coming along, I want a clear-cut idea of what we are talking about. Are we to value the land irrespective of the improvement brought about by Government money? Is it to be the value of the land according to the market price or according to the site value plus improvement? The noble Lord can toss about with that all night in his bed, and perhaps he will see what I have been driving at.

Mr. Pym: My Amendment has nothing to do with the interesting things that the hon. Member has been telling us about. It merely takes words from another Act and says that in certain circumstances that shall be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of Minister to buy requisitioned land.)

Sir R. W. Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, after "advice," to insert:
of a majority of the committee consisting of not less than two-thirds of all the members.
I do not say what the majority should be, but it seems to me that there is a point of substance in the Amendment. When the Ministry is going to ask advice of a war agricultural committee we should see that there is quite a reasonable number of the members of the committee present when they come to their final decision, more especially as these agricultural committees are all voluntary bodies. It would be a very serious thing if only one or two members were present when a certain policy was arrived at. I should like to see that at least a reasonable majority of the committee must come to a decision in regard to what is to be done to the land before it is compulsorily taken.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am afraid we cannot accept this or the next Amendment, which I take to be consequential. It is usual in such bodies as agricultural executive committees for the majority to rule. It does in this House. Therefore, for administrative reasons it would be impossible. There is a further reason which renders the Amendment unacceptable. It might invalidate the certificates already issued for taking possession of land. It would be necessary to go back and determine what number of members were present on any particular occasion, and it is conceivable that the necessary two-thirds were not present.

Sir R. W. Smith: When it is said that in this House a majority is necessary, I would point out that s. quorum is also necessary. What is the quorum on an agricultural committee?

Mr. T. Smith: There is nothing in the Amendment about a quorum. All it says is that before the Minister can act the committee must have a two-thirds majority.

Sir R.W. Smith: I did not tie myself to a figure, but I think there ought to be some figure.

Mr. Smith: The Amendment refers to two-thirds of all the members. I have had experience of local government, and I have seen some curious things happen in voting. I have seen some curious things happen in trade union voting also, but I cannot imagine the House passing an Amendment which lays it down that before the Minister can act the majority must consist of not less than two-thirds of the members. We make laws of the land without any regard to a two-thirds majority, and there have been occasions in the House when I have thought that we ought to insist on a two-thirds majority. Some of the laws to which I object would not be on the Statute Book if that had been done.

Sir R. W. Smith: I do not stick to a two-thirds majority, but I would like to ask the Minister what the quorum of an agricultural committee is.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert:
and that increase in value cannot by another means be preserved for the Crown.
Owing to the short time between the Second Reading and Committee stage I have not had time to put this Amendment on the Paper, and I had to hand it in as a manuscript Amendment. The Amendment provides that the Section shall not be invoked unless the Minister is satisfied that by no other means can the value be preserved to the Crown. Clause 9 introduces an entirely new principle to our law. Authorities have always had the power to buy out owners of land which is wanted for occupation in connection with electricity undertakings, aerodromes, or work of that nature. This Clause permits the Crown to buy land which it does not propose to occupy permanently, and that is something which has not been done before. It is sought to justify this in paragraph 2 on page iii of the Explanatory Memorandum by the necessity to preserve to the Crown the benefit of increases in value created by the Minister of Agriculture who has gone into occupation of the land under the Defence Regulations. Such entry is, of course, made when either the land is not being cultivated at all or is not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
This is the outline of the procedure. Assume that possession has been taken; the Minister then certifies that the value of the land has been or will be substantially increased by things done or intended to be done by the Minister. The Minister compulsorily acquires the land, compensation is calculated, and the amount is settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Value (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. That compensation does not cover severance, loss of amenity, etc. It is to be ascertained as at the date on which the Minister gives notice to treat. There must be deducted two things: any increase in the value which is due to anything done by the Minister since he went into occupation under the Defence Regulations, and any appreciation in the value of the land which is "directly or indirectly attributable to the war." Within five years from the end of the war the Minister must offer to resell the land to the dispossessed owner. I hope the Committee will note that the person to whom the Minister is obliged to offer to resell is the owner, whereas it is the tenant who may have been in possession of the land. That is a grave distinction. The price to be paid to the Crown will, however, be the postwar value calculated and settled under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. If the offer to resell is not accepted within a month the Minister may sell the land to anybody else. Finally, the Crown retains to itself not only the increased value caused by the exertions of the Crown in cultivating the land, but also whatever accretions of value have occurred up to the date of the resale.
We must therefore consider the following points: The grounds which are advanced in support of the whole idea are fallacious. Admitting that the Crown is entitled to any increased value in the land caused by its own activities, that increased value could be secured to the Crown by a charge on the property without expropriating the owner. The whole process is based on failure either to cultivate at all or else to cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry, and seems to assume some dereliction of duty to the nation on the part of the owner of the land. The assumption is, however, quite mistaken, for three reasons. Unless the owner of the land was also


the occupier—Members know how often the owner of the land is not the occupier —the cultivation was in the hands of the tenant and not of the owner. There is plenty of land which was not under cultivation for very good reasons; for example, it was being held for some other purpose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When hon. Members say "Hear, hear," they must remember the economic conditions of agriculture before the war, which made the cultivation of a large part of our land completely uneconomic. Its cultivation was not a paying proposition. Under pre-war economic conditions probably few holdings were farmed up to the stringent standard of the rules of good husbandry laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act. In practice, agricultural valuers interpreted the rules in the light of their own knowledge and experience.
The compensation to be paid when the Minister buys the land is to be reduced by any appreciation in value ''directly or indirectly attributable to the war." We might almost say that the expropriated owner cannot receive more than the prewar value for his land. If, on the other hand, the land had some value outside the agricultural value, it may well be that the value has temporarily gone during the war. The Committee will realise that before the war there were large stretches of land which had considerable value as building land but which have now been expropriated, and that value will not attach to them after the war. In such circumstances the Government would not pay the pre-war value but, apparently, would pay the temporarily reduced value. In the result the Government always acquires the land on most favourable terms, namely, the pre-war value or the war-time value, whichever is the lesser. When the Government come to resell the land they receive the full post-war value. They eat their cake and have it. It follows that if the expropriated owner desires to have his land back he not only has to pay the increased value caused by the Government's exertions on his land but any increase in the value which has accrued since before the war.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Lady explain from whom the landlord expropriated the land in the first place, because that would really clear up a good deal of doubt?

Mrs. Tate: I have never been a student of history, and that would be going too far back, sorry as I am not to be able to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. He will have to consult H. G. Wells. It will be noticed, therefore, that if the war period lasted four years, the unfortunate owner might have to pay out to the Crown any increase in value which had occurred over a period of nine years. I realise that I am pleading an absolutely lost cause. I quite appreciate that the Minister can summon his henchmen from the dining-tables of the House and that I shall probably get no support, but it seems to me that the House has been hustled into accepting a Bill of dimensions far too great for it to digest in the short time it has had in which to digest it. I really suggest that the Minister had no right to bring forward a Bill of these dimensions and to give us no time whatever between the Second and Third Readings; and if the House likes to accept an entirely new principle in law which enables the Government to eat its cake and have it and the owner of land to be cheated, because that is what it really amounts to— The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) need not laugh. The hon. Member may perhaps not know that there are some very tiny owners of land. Not all owners of land are the wealthy people he seems to imagine. However, I say that Clause 9 does allow a very great injustice to be done, and I beg that the Committee will gravely consider the question before passing this Clause.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I wish to support this Amendment. I would make it clear that I in no way challenge the right of the Government to the benefits which may accrue from what they have done to the land. What I am afraid of is that the procedure proposed will probably result in increasing the cost of production of the food of the people. If we are to have open sale of this land that will, to a certain extent, put a permanent charge upon the land which will have to be met out of the revenue from the production of food, and I wish the Minister to say that in all these cases he will fully consider the possibility of adopting some other method by which he could obtain the advantages to the Government which he is legitimately trying to get; that is, to get a return for the money which he has legitimately expended by some method which will not result in this permanent additional charge.
I should have thought there must be some method of putting a charge on the land which would be relevant to the return from that land other than putting on the permanent charge which will result from the open sale of the land. We know that when a sale of land takes place many other things than its actual food-producing capacity are taken into consideration by a purchaser. After the last war a number of men who had had opportunities of making money easily during the war wished to invest that money. They knew nothing whatever of the value of land or of its capacity to produce food. All they wanted was an investment for their money, and it was a quite legitimate desire on their part, but if such men are to buy up land it may have a very deleterious effect upon the value of that land from the point of view of food production, because it may leave that land with charges which are too heavy for it to bear economically. I know of cases where one farmer bid against a brother former who had farmed his land well. The occupant of the farm had to buy his farm not only in order to preserve its food producing capacity but in order to preserve his own home, and had to pay for other benefits which are not adequately met under the Act which gives compensation for disturbance. Consequently he had to give a bigger price than the land was really worth. To raise the money he had to go to a monevlender, and he found himself saddled with charges upon his land which were double those which he had to meet prior to the war. I hope the Minister will fully consider whether he cannot adopt other methods in preference to sale in the open market, while seeing that the fertility of the land is retained and that any money which has been spent upon it by the Government shall return to the Government.

Mr. Hudson: I followed very carefully the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). She complained that we had not left sufficient time for the proper consideration of the Bill, but at any rate she has found time in which to produce a full exposition of her case, though, if I may say so without disrespect, what she said seemed to have nothing to do with her Amendment, nor, for that matter, were the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) more to the point.

Sir J. Lamb: It will give you an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Hudson: After all, this Bill will deal only with a small minority of cases in which the owner of land has refused, or failed, to carry out the orders of war agricultural committees, orders issued with a view to increasing to the maximum the productivity of the land. This is not a Bill to enable me to take possession of all the land in the country. The Bill comes into effect only when there has been default on the part of the owner of a particular piece of land, because the owner has failed, or refused to avail himself of the opportunities given to him to put his land in order. Then the Government come in in order to see that the land produces the amount of food which it is capable of producing, and we must be entitled to recover what we have spent upon the land, or such part of it as an arbitrator will say subsequently is the fair proportion to be recovered. That is really all that the Clause does.
The hon. Member for Stone talked about what happened after the last war, but this has no relevance to what happened after the last war. The Committee will remember that I gave an instance of the sort of case that has cropped up, a case in which a man had neglected his land and it was taken over in the last war. The land was put right then, but he has neglected it since and it has had to be taken over again in this war. Speaking from memory, he had allowed all the roofs to fall in, he had practically no stock on the land and it was overgrown with weeds. You cannot impose a charge upon that land. The proper thing is to take the land, spend the money upon it and then resell it.

Sir J. Lamb: I am not challenging, in fact I am supporting, the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, but what I do want to avoid is the adoption of the process of open sale as a means of recovering what has been spent upon the land. My object is to get the Government to adopt any other course than that of resort to open sale, because it cannot be denied that as a consequence of what happened after the last war certain farms are to-day bearing rents which are very much higher than they were able to carry previously.

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend will remember that I gave an explanation on


the Second Reading. Much the easiest way of dealing with these cases is to let the land to a competent farmer at once, and I want these powers to enable us to do so. We are proposing to effect what the hon. Member wants.

Major Owen: I know of a case in my own town where a farm has been requisitioned as the result of bad farming by the tenant. What happens when farms are on estates, the landlords of which are considered to be very good? What is the position of the farmer if the war agricultural committee takes over the farm and obtains the dismissal of the tenant? Does the Minister take over the farm?

Mr. Hudson: The normal procedure is that the committee consult with the owner or his agent to persuade him to find a tenant of whom the committee approve. If the owner should say "No," we want to have these powers to make sure of the position.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pym: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out "or any neighbouring."
I move the Amendment in order to ascertain what the Minister has in mind. It looks as though he requires these words in order to tidy up the Clause and give him certain powers, but it seems strange to put them into the Bill. Why on earth, because he is the owner of a particular plot of land, should he give himself powers over and above those possessed by an ordinary landowner? There appear to be two reasons. One is that he seeks to put himself in a position different from that of an ordinary landowner, but that will be very undesirable; or he may have in mind the importance of food production in war-time. He already has full powers to enable him to do something to increase food production on neighbouring land, so it is difficult to see the real purpose of these words.

Mr. Hudson: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. Obviously, one of my main preoccupations must be to increase food production, and I must be

assured that anything I do on a particular piece of land, whether for the benefit of that land or of neighbouring land, can be done without interference. The original owner, to whom the land may subsequently be offered back, will not be damnified by the retention of these words, which must be retained for the purpose of obtaining the maximum food production required by the war.

Mr. Pym: I cannot understand the argument of the Minister. It seems to imply that the owner of land which the Minister has compulsorily acquired will be sitting on the other side of the fence watching what he is doing, and saying now and again that the Minister cannot do this or that. I cannot see any reason why these words are required.

Mr. Hudson: I will try to clear up my hon. Friend's fears. I: will be remembered that at one stage it was suggested that we should leave out the words "in his opinion," and I was advised that I ought not to agree to that because it would enable a previous owner of the land to go to the courts and issue a writ against us saying that we were acting outside our powers, although we had formally taken possession. In order to prevent that danger arising, we insisted that those words should stay in, and for the same reason the words which this Amendment proposes to delete should stay in. They cannot do any harm.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Stokes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert:
( ) The compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of any land under this section may, if the Minister thinks fit, be satisfied in whole or in part by the creation of a rentcharge issuing out of the land acquired.
In moving this Amendment, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) in whose name it stands has unfortunately found it impossible, on account of circumstances outside his control, to be present. What my hon. Friend seeks to do is to introduce into Clause 9 what I might term a reciprocal arrangement, if that would be the correct description, to that which exists in Clause 10 regarding the disposal of the land at the end of the war period or within five years thereafter. If hon. Members will look at Clause 10, they will see that on page 9, in Sub-section (7) it is stated:


(7) A sale by the Minister under this section may, if the Minister thinks fit, be made in consideration, wholly or partly, of the granting to the Minister of a rentcharge issuing out of the land sold, and on any sale by the Minister under this section, any part of the price may, if the Minister thinks fit, be left outstanding and secured by a mortgage to the Minister of all or any part of the land sold.
Under the present arrangement in Clause 9, the Minister only has power to acquire by payment land which he may require. What this Amendment seeks to introduce is an option on the part of the Minister to rent the land from the existing landlord. I should like to explain certain advantages which that would have. It would avoid any capital payment for the present time. The Minister himself, speaking on an earlier Clause in the Bill, made the observation that the reason it was necessary for the Government to have these powers of compulsory acquisition was because, in the opinion of the Government, in most cases the landlord had failed to avail himself of the opportunity which the national resources offered and was not properly cultivating his land, thereby departing from his duty to the community. Under the Clause as it stands the Government merely propose to compensate the landlord, for failing to do his duty, by a capital sum perhaps out of all proportion to the value of the land, especially having regard to the fact—so far as I know—that we have had no definition of the basis on which the valuation is to be made.
Another point I wish to make—I shall refer again to the valuation question when we come to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—is this: it seems to me that if, at the end of the war period or within the stated period thereafter, the Minister has the right either to rent the land or sell it, either to the original proprietor or to some other person, surely in acquiring the land he ought to have the right of option between paying a capital sum or a small rent charge for its use. That would be much less expensive, generally speaking, to the community as a whole, and it would have the advantage that if at the end of the war the Minister found it either undesirable or impossible to dispose of the land he would continue to enjoy its use at the pre-war rental, which would surely be to the benefit of the community. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment, which seeks to put him in exactly the same

position with regard to acquiring the use of land as with regard to its disposal, namely, either by rent or by sale.

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, because I think it would inflict considerable injustices, especially in the case of trustees. There is a considerable difference between telling a man you are going to take his property and saying to him that you are going to sell him something and that he can pay on the instalment system. Suppose we created this rent charge; what in fact would happen? If the owner wanted to dispose of his land, he would go around the country hawking the rent charge and trying to sell it for what capital sum he could get. It would not be a very satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, and we think that on the whole it is much better that we should pay cash for the land.

Mr. Stokes: I cannot possibly accept that very—if I may say so—"one-eyed" explanation. What we are seeking to do is not to deprive the sitting landlord of any of his justifiable rights; the Minister himself has said that the Government have found it necessary to introduce this Measure because the landlord has defaulted in his obligations to the community. We now have the crazy suggestion that because the man has defaulted in his obligations it is proposed to buy him out. All I am suggesting to the Committee is that the land could be rented at a nominal value. It would have to be a very low value, in view of the fact that the land has apparently been misused in the past and is not therefore of high value to the landlord. Instead of my proposal, the Minister intends to have an altogether arbitrary valuation put on the land, and pay a capital sum to compensate the trustees or whoever may have been misusing the land. I have always thought that we were living in a kind of "Alice in Wonderland," but this is the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in excelsis. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision that he cannot accept this Amendment. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that in acquiring land he should have at least the same alternative rights as in disposing of it. Does the Minister really suggest that in present conditions, with the powers the Government have, he is to be blocked by a set of trustees? If that is the best reply that the Minister can put forward in answer


to my arguments, I hope the Committee will support my Amendment and refuse to support the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to move, in page 7, line 43, after "held," to insert "or agreed to be held."
The Amendment which I propose is to insert certain words which slightly alter the definition of the land held by the National Trust which is mentioned in Subsection (6) of Clause 9. That Subsection prevents the Clause from authorising the Minister to acquire certain lands, including land which belongs to the National Trust. My right hon. Friend has put in words which will be entirely satisfactory to the National Trust in the vast majority of cases, and it may be that he will think that the fears of the National Trust, which I am endeavouring to remove by this Amendment, are unnecessary. Let me explain to the Committee what those fears are. The words which define the property of the National Trust for the purposes of this Sub-section say:
Any land the fee simple absolute in possession of which belongs to, and is held inalienably by, the National Trust.
In a number of cases where property is left to the National Trust there may be a considerable interval between the death of the late owner of the land who leaves the property to the National Trust and the date when, for various legal reasons, his executors are in a position to give the vesting assent. In that interval it is very doubtful whether the latter part of the definition which I have read would be held to be satisfied. To give an example to the Committee, the great estate of Blickling in Norfolk has been left to the National Trust. There is, of course, no doubt that far the greater part of that estate will in due course be held inalienably by the Trust. Nevertheless, at this moment, Blickling would not fall within this definition. I am therefore moving this Amendment as a protection in cases of that kind. I do not think for one moment that my right hon. Friend would dream of abusing his powers in order to take advantage of a short period of time before an estate has been vested inalienably in the National Trust. Nevertheless I think the point is one which deserves consideration. The Amendment in the form in which I am moving it has

been drafted very hastily, and it may be that my right hon. Friend's advisers may say that it is not definite enough or is possibly too wide. If that is the case, I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot himself move, at a later stage, some form of words more satisfactory to himself and his advisers to meet the risk which I have brought to the attention of the Committee. I thank him for putting in this exception of the National Trust, but I would ask him to consider whether the National Trust's fear of the failure of his definition to meet some cases may not be veil-founded and whether he may not be able to remove it.

Mr. Hudson: The National Trust and my Department work, I am happy to say, in the closest co-operation, and there is not the slightest likelihood of my Department, under myself or any successor, seeking to acquire or to sell land which belongs to the National Trust, or in respect of which there is evidence that the property will pass to the National Trust. The words on the Order Paper are very vague and very wide, and as I do not think there is any chance or likelihood whatever of the eventuality of which the hon. Member spoke coming about, I hope he will not press the Amendment because, in its present terms, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Strauss: I do not wish to press the Amendment after what my right hon. Friend has said. At the same time, I would ask him to consider whether there might be sufficient substance in what I have said for him to consider a more suitable form of words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ammon: Before we part with this Clause I would like to ask the Minister whether he contemplates acquiring, under his powers, land in which there is already a public interest, such as that in the London Green Belt. Some of that land has been acquired not to be used for building purposes, subject to existing tenancies continuing. Such requisitioning should not divert the land from its original purpose so that the Minister could buy land and resell it and it be used not subject to planning. That would make a very serious


difference to what has been contemplated when the land was acquired.

Mr. Creech Jones: Subsection (6) of this Clause does seem to me to be somewhat narrowly drafted, and it occurs to a number of my hon. Friends and myself that there are certain types of common-land which are excluded from the definition included in this Sub-section. I would like, if I may, to ask the Minister whether between now and the discussion of this Bill in another place, he will consider whether the exception in respect of common-land can be somewhat widened. As I understand the position from the definition used in the Clause, there are common-lands which are excluded, such as those regulated by. rural district councils or urban authorities under the Commons Act of 1899, commons situated in an urban district which have become subject to a statutory right of public access under the Law of Property Act, 1925; there are certain rural commons under that Act, there are commons which have been included in draft planning schemes for preservation as permanent open or private spaces, and, I believe, commons needed to supply pasture for the cattle and sheep of commoners. There is some doubt as to whether all that class of common is included in the definition under this Subsection. I would ask the Minister, therefore, whether consideration can be given to the point, because I am quite certain it is his intention that all common-land should be properly covered. If the Clause is somewhat ineffectively drafted, I hope that, at a later stage of the Bill, some Amendment may be made in order to cover all common-land.

Mr. Denman: I must apologise to the Minister for asking a question that arises merely out of my ignorance of this matter. I want to know whether on the various documents that are issued under this Clause and the following Clause Stamp Duty will be payable. It would obviously be a hardship for an owner whose land is taken away from him and who is compelled to buy it back if he were compelled to pay full Stamp Duty on it.

Sir Francis Fremantle (St. Albans): I want to raise a point relating to Subsection (6). The British Waterworks Association are concerned, naturally and

rightly, for the protection of the water supplies of this country. In some cases there are extensive gathering grounds which may be rough and uncultivated, according to the definition in this Clause. It would appear, therefore, that the Minister is being given power to take over such land and to sell or let it for the purpose of development at various times, which, right as it may be in other circumstances, would not add to the safety of our drinking water. The Association want some assurance that the Minister will protect their interests, whether by the insertion of further words in the Subsection or in some other way. Although the Waterworks Association have no evidence of any such land being likely to be so acquired they have to protect the public against dangers of several kinds. It is just as important to protect these water interests specifically as to protect the National Trust specifically.

Sir E. Shepperson: The Minister is taking power under this Clause to acquire land compulsorily, at a value to be fixed by arbitration. At the end of the time the land will be offered back to the landlord, at a value also to be fixed by arbitration. Certain land may have not only an agricultural value but a building, or site, value as well. It might be that land would have had this value in pre-war conditions but that, owing to the war, the building value will have disappeared altogether. The land is to be acquired when the building value has disappeared, but when it is offered back two or three years after the cessation of hostilities, the building value may again have been added to the land, and the landlord will then receive the land back with not merely an enhanced agricultural value, but an enhanced building value as well.

Mr. Stokes: I hope that, after the speeches which have been made, the Minister will appreciate the kind of mess that he is getting himself into. We have had one of my hon. Friends explaining that it is quite possible that the Minister will find himself wanting, for agricultural purposes, to acquire land which has already been acquired by some competent authority for building purposes. Under this Bill, the Minister is to acquire that at a valuation which is to be calculated on some perfectly arbitrary figure, but a figure which will take into account the


fact that the land may have improved in value Since the war started. It is quite absurd for him to spend public funds in compensating public authorities or private individuals who have already paid a speculative figure for land in the hope of benefiting hereafter. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) was a very sound and wise one, and I think the Minister turned it down too precipitately.
It is not clear on what basis this compensation is to be paid. Is it on the rateable value? If so, as agricultural land is derated, it will be calculated as a multiple of the figure nought, which, I might remind the right hon. Gentleman, is still nought. Valuable land which is ripe for development may have been taken. The Minister proposes to take large sums of public money to compensate the owners of such land for something that they have not used. I ask him to remember the story, which I agree may seem to him a little far-fetched, of a very famous pirate called Captain Kidd, who roamed the high seas, sank ships right and left, and acquired great wealth. He had a curious kink: he was not like most pirates: he buried his wealth. But suppose that he had left the money to his descendants and that one of his descendants was living in Park Lane, and that I, being a descendant of one of the people whose ships were sunk, went to a magistrate in the City of London, and said: "What about that money?" The other man would rightly plead the Statute of Limitations, and it would be said, "We have more to do than to compensate you for some wrongdoing which happened all those years back." I quite agree. But suppose that Captain Kidd had, instead of burying the money, floated a company called Piracy, Limited, which was now roaming the high seas, sinking ships right and left, and that the chairman of the Cunard Company came along and said, "This is outrageous; we cannot allow these sinkings to continue." We should all agree. But what would you do? Would you stop it? No, you would gather together all the authorities to work out, on an actuarial basis, what you had to pay Captain Kidd's descendants to stop them from sinking ships in the Atlantic.
I ask the Minister to get up and make it clear upon what basis this compensation is to be paid. The point is that the

Government do not know themselves what they are going to do. They are trying to base every purchase on a valuation which has never taken place. I do not want to detain the Committee any longer on a lecture on economics—I could go on on this subject at almost indefinite length—but I ask that there should be a clear definition of the basis of the valuation, and that the Minister should reconsider his attitude and appreciate the wisdom of the Amendment to this Clause which stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea to retain the right of alternative purchase or rent in acquiring land for the purposes for which he requires it.

Mr. Hudson: I was asked one or two questions, and I will see if I can give an answer. With regard to the L.C.C. and Green Belt, my Department has been in touch with them, but, as far as we know, no case has arisen in connection with the L.C.C, and I cannot see us compulsorily acquiring land in the ownership of the local authority.

Mr. Stokes: Of any local authority?

Mr. Hudson: I would not like to say "of any local authority." I was asked a question about the L.C.C.

Mr. Ammon: This raises the point regarding land acquired where it has been decided that tenants may remain for the rest of their lives. That land is preserved for them, but it is quite likely that some of the land is not being well farmed and may come under the domination of the Minister. It would appear that under the Clause he could requisition it and that afterwards the land might be sold without the planning which had already been laid down under a former Act for better housing and the distribution of the land itself.

Mr. Hudson: The real answer and safeguard are that the Minister of Agriculture is mainly concerned to try and preserve land for agricultural purposes and to prevent it from being built upon. Therefore, it is hardly conceivable that the Minister of Agriculture would take land away from a local authority intended for open spaces and resell it for building. The provisions of the Bill are intended to exclude commons altogether, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has any doubt and will


let me have the opinion of the people advising him, I will go into the matter, and, if there is any doubt, will try and put it right. As far as stamps are concerned, I am informed that Stamp Duty will be chargeable, and as for waterworks, I am not aware of any case such as that referred to, and I have no intention of depriving a water undertaking of the ownership of land essential for the purpose of the supply of water for human consumption.

Sir F. Fremantle: The catchment areas extend over a very wide district, and I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman will find his agricultural advisers stating that there are certain areas which could be put to greater agricultural use, and therefore there will be a contest between the two requirements.

Mr. Hudson: I am fully aware of a number of areas where land could be put to better use than that to which, in my opinion, it is put to-day, and I propose to take steps to see whether possibly fuller use can be made of it. As far as the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) is concerned, there is one obvious way for the owner to prevent any of these dreadful things occurring, and that is, to carry out the instructions of war agricultural committees. Normally speaking, I think the value of the land will be assessed by arbitrators on more or less the same basis. Anyone who is afraid that this sort of thing may happen to him can prevent it by proceeding to carry out the instructions of the war agricultural committees.

Mr. Stokes: I put to the right hon. Gentleman a categorical question, and he has not answered. What does he mean on page 7 of the Bill with regard to the basis of valuation? I understand that the method is to see whether there has been improved value before the war started. That has to be decided before compensation is paid. What is the basis value? How does he propose to arrive at the value which was not taken at the time some, three or four years before war started?

Mr. Hudson: That is a matter that the arbitrator will have to decide in the light of the observations put before him.

Mr. Denman: I would ask the Minister to consider further the point about Stamp Duty. I have no great sympathy with landlords in the circumstances in which we are contemplating these transactions, but it is rather ridiculous that the State should seize a property for good reasons and then, a year or so after, sell it back to the original owner and incidentally charge Stamp Duty. Why should the State on these transactions seek to make a profit? It seems to be rather a tyrannous and brutal procedure, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before we reach a later stage.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Disposal of land acquired under the last preceding Section.)

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may."
The Amendment will have the effect of making "shall" into "may" and leaving out the five years' limit. I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to explain why he thinks that it is necessary to include a provision of this kind. I can understand that if the whole of the land of this country had been nationalised during the war, as the Government have power to do, some action being taken by legislation to make sure that the question of nationalisation should not be prejudged by the war but that the land should revert to the previous owners. But no such issue is raised at all here. A very minute quantity of land not exceeding 100,000 acres in all we are told is to be taken over, and it will only be taken over for the very good reason that the owner has failed to cultivate it properly. I should have thought that when the State exercised its option in the circumstances it really was going much too far to say that the land must—not may—be offered back to the previous owner under certain conditions laid down in the Clause after the war is over. It is the type of mind which says, "Back to 1939." Nothing would be more unfortunate, if there was any idea of that kind and it would be out of keeping with the wishes of the people of this country.
It may be that the intention of the Clause has been misunderstood. If so, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is not, as a rule, sympathetic towards proposals


for selling public land back to landowners, will be able to explain it. It is curious to find him in the position of having to defend a transaction which returns land to private ownership in circumstances of this kind. The whole Clause is quite unnecessary. I am proposing a very modest Amendment indeed. It does not prejudge the issue one way or the other as to whether the land should go back or not, but it would no longer make it compulsory upon the Minister to offer it.
The proposal I am making now is that the Minister should still have power, if he thought fit, to offer the land back, but that he should not be compelled to do so. I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with his well-known sympathy with the point of view I am expressing—a view previously held by him—and with his well-known consistency in everything he does, will, be able to express approval of the mild Amendment I am moving, and on behalf of the Government will say he can accept it.

Mr. MacLaren: I want to support this Amendment, and for this reason. My hon. Friend said that the Bill as now drafted might bring us back to the conditions which prevailed in 1939, and I would like the Committee to wake up to the fact that we are going forward for some years with a great enterprise which will change the entire face of Europe. In this country we must be far ahead of other countries in our political thinking. I hope no one in this Committee will hug any illusions that after the war we shall pick up the threads of things as they were when the war began. The land of this country will go back to the people of this country as soon as this war is over. Let there be no mistake about that. Every acre of it will go back, not by purchase but by the declaration of Parliament itself, and it is well that hon. Members should know this before it happens. Some of us are determined on that. Westminster will not go on at the steady gait of Victorian times after this cataclysm is over. So I want to give the Committee a hint that with regard to land ownership a fight will take place, the like of which nobody has ever seen. Nearly every household has been asked to contribute men to defend their land, and we are determined that it shall be the pro

perty of those who ate defending it when they come back. I suggest that it shall be discretionary on the part of the Minister whether he gives back the land or not, and I would say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whose economics were very sound when he was on these benches, "Is this on all fours with what you really believed until recently?" I ask him to take out the word "shall" and put in the word "may," and that there shall be nothing obligatory about handing back the land.

Mr. Denman: I hope that the mover and supporter of this Amendment will not press it, because I am not sure that they have realised its consequences. One consequence is that the proviso which immediately follows this Sub-section would necessarily have to go. It declares that the Minister shall not be under an obligation to offer land back if among other things in the opinion of the Committee it would not or could not be properly managed. That proviso is an exceedingly valuable safeguard, and if the word "may" is substituted for "shall," the whole of this proviso goes.

Mr. Mander: But my hon. Friend and myself mean that there should be consequential Amendments.

Sir J. Lamb: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because there may be cases where land taken over, through no fault of the owner—it may be the fault of the occupier—should be returned to the farmer or State for economic reasons. I hope the word "shall" will be left in, because there may be considerations later which make it quite possible that the land will not be offered because of certain conditions which follow. Later in this Clause there is another Sub-section —Sub-section (6)—where it says "may," and that will give the Government an opportunity of holding the land, with which I agree. There may be cases where the Government own certain lands, and it may be to the advantage of the country, and agriculture generally, that they themselves should be actual demonstrators of agriculture. They could demonstrate new methods and prove some of the theoretical processes which are put forward by their experts before being passed on to farmers as practical.

Mr. T. Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who moved this Amendment, referred to my opinions in the past. It is, I think, very unkind to remind one of one's political past, particularly when one happens to have changed one's situation in the House. It is true that I have great sympathy with what lurks behind the mind of the mover of this Amendment, and that when sitting on the opposite Bench in 1940 I was guilty of saying that it would be a crime to take possession of an area of land which was being badly farmed, restore it to a high state of fertility and then to hand that land back to the same person who had abused his trust in the past. I felt that then, and I feel that to-day, but it is because Sub-section (1, b) of this Clause gives my right hon. Friend, or whoever the Minister may be, power to refuse to restore land to an owner who had previously abused it, and who, as proved to the satisfaction of the Minister, would make no better use of it if it was handed back to him than he did before it was taken from him, that I can quite readily and with a clear conscience stand here and suggest that if the Amendment were accepted, Clause 10 would automatically go, and I am not sure that that would be consistent with the wishes of the Committee or the country.
We are taking possession of areas of land in cases where we are satisfied that the landowner or tenant-farmer cannot, or will not, farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. We are doing so under Emergency Regulations, because there happens to be. a war and it is vital to the nation to produce the maximum amount of food. The fact that we are given extraordinary powers to deal with landowners, tenant-farmers or owner-occupiers scarcely justifies us in saying that in all sets of circumstances the land taken over should not at least be offered back to the original owner, if he can satisfy the advisers of the Minister and the Minister himself that he can and will farm the land according to the rules of good husbandry.

Mr. MacLaren: Is there any objection to his renting it?

Mr. Williams: In many cases where land has been taken over from a farmer, we have offered the former work on his own

farm on condition that he farmed according to the directions of the county war agricultural executive committee. As long as we take measures of an extraordinary nature in the middle of a war and as long as we are satisfied that the land will not be abused in future as it has been in the past, I think the time-limit of five years imposed in the Bill will give ample time for all those revolutions referred by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Air. MacLaren). If, as he stated, the land will go back to the people vey quickly, with or without compensation, why should he worry about this Clause? Why does he concern himself about 150,000 acres if millions of acres are going back to the people very quickly? My right hon. Friend and I are concerned with winning the war and feeding the people. I hope my right hon. Friend will see that we have at any rate tried to ensure that we shall not restore to the original owners any land unless we are satisfied that they will be better farmers in future than they have been in the past. Having taught the landowner a lesson—having taken possession of the land to begin with, acquired the land later so that large sums of money could be spent upon it and real agricultural work done, and then saying to the landowner, ''You can have the land back now at a value determined by an arbitrator"—having taught the landowner that lesson, which ought to last for the rest of his life, or at any rate until that time arrives when we shall be dealing not with 150,000 acres but with millions of acres, I hope my hon. Friend will see the wisdom of not pressing the Amendment, and will accept our gesture that we will not hand the land back to the landowners unless we are satisfied that they will make the maximum use of it in future.

Mr. Mander: I am afraid I cannot agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has made any gesture in regard to the Amendment. His explanation has not given me any satisfaction, although I have a great deal of sympathy with him at his having to stand at that Box and put forward such unfortunate views as he has done. He said that he is thinking about winning the war and not about the period afterwards, but I venture to say that most people are thinking about both, winning the war and getting a better world afterwards, and a better world in the agricultural sense, too. I thought the most regrettable part of what my right hon. Friend said was when he


definitely committed himself to the view that, after all that has happened, after the Government have acquired the land because the landowner was not farming it properly, and in spite of all the progress in thought and tendencies of the age, nevertheless when the war is over it will be right and proper to return to 1939, and to say that those who were landowners in 1939 and who are being displaced by the State at the present time must be reinstated in exactly the positions in which they were. That is my fundamental objection to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, although I quite appreciate the good sense of many of the points he made on other grounds. I think that is a lamentable course for him to have to defend, and one that is not in keeping with the thought of the nation at the present time.

Major Owen: I want to raise one point on which I hope the Minister will be able to give some explanation. This Clause enables a landlord to repurchase his farm, after a certain period, when the Minister decides to give him an opportunity of buying it. At the present time, tenant-farmers are being displaced by the county war agricultural executive committees, but I cannot see anything in the Clause which provides for the reinstatement of farmers.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter which the hon. and gallant Member may raise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but not on this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, to leave out "considering a report of the Committee," and to insert:
having given an opportunity to any persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected of making representations and considered any such representations made.
With your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, and that of the Committee, I should like to deal at the same time with this Amendment and the following Amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym). These Amendments are not put forward in any sense of hostility towards the Bill, but for the purpose of removing two possible obstacles which have arisen

since this rather complicated Clause appeared in print. It has been suggested that it is only reasonable that the Minister, before certifying that land should not be handed back to an individual because it would not be properly managed, should give that individual an opportunity of being heard and of having his case considered. I have no doubt that the Minister has every intention of doing that, but it would remove some misgivings if a provision to that effect were inserted in the Bill. Secondly, it has been pointed out that the Clause will be operative for five years after the end of the war, and it may well be that in some districts during those five years the county war agricultural executive committees may cease to exist. It would not be right that the Minister should be hampered in giving his certificate in reference to a farm in a district in which there was no longer such a committee.

Mr. T. Williams: We are quite willing to accept the Amendment. We quite agree that there may or may not be in existence after the war the committees referred to in the Schedule. Certainly the words referred to will be necessary for the Minister to take into account any representations that might be made by persons interested in the land. We feel that the Amendment is quite acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pym: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, to leave out "be," and to insert
at the date of the offer have been.
The object of this Amendment is to provide that the date when the offer was made shall be the date for valuation.

Mr. T. Williams: We are quite willing to accept this Amendment. We think it is far better that the date upon which the offer was made should be the date for valuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."
It is possible that the persons to whom an offer is made may be scattered over the world, and one month may be insufficient time to enable it to reach them. In order to meet our point, I am asking the Minister to extend the period from one month to three.

Mr. T. Williams: We are quite prepared to accept this Amendment, because a period of one month may be too short where an owner of land may be abroad.

Mr. T. Smith: Will this provision be advertised?

Mr. Williams:: The period of one month is too short for advertising, and, therefore, I think a period of three months would be more suitable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pym: I beg to move, in page 9, line 9, at the end, to insert:
and where the person to whom the offer is made has accepted the offer he shall be entitled to withdraw such acceptance at any time before the expiration of the said period.
The object of this Amendment is to ascertain what is the intention in regard to this offer of resale. Sub-section (3) states:
The said offer shall be an offer to sell the land for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession ….
I assume that the form in which the offer will be made will be by the issue of a printed document, asking the owner whether or not he will avail himself of the offer. The question arises whether it is an offer at a price or merely an offer. The Minister, having satisfied himself that the owner is a fit person, would ask whether he wished to re-buy the land and the owner would ask the price. A discussion might take place for three mouths, and at the end of that period, if agreement had not been reached, the question of arbitration would arise. The point I wished to ask is this: Is the offer tied to a price? Could the Minister ask the owner whether or not he was going to avail himself of the offer, telling him that the question of price did not arise?

Mr. Hudson: We have just accepted an Amendment to extend the period from one to three months, and I think that ought to be sufficient for any reasonable being; one has to assume that in these matters reason will prevail. I do not think we can really be expected to deal with the position of a man saying first of all that he will accept the offer, and then that he will not accept the offer. Either he accepts it or he does not.

Mr. Pym: Accepts what?

Mr. Hudson: Accepts the offer.

Mr. Pym: What offer?

Mr. Hudson: The offer to re-purchase.

Mr. Garro Jones: For once, I think the Minister has missed the point. This Bill envisages a situation in which an offer of resale is made to the original owner. The owner accepts that offer, and a binding contract has been made with no price fixed. Obviously that is an impossible situation. The man is utterly unable to say whether he will buy the land or not until he knows what sort of price is to be asked. I think the confusion has arisen because in drafting the Bill the term "offer" has been confused with what is known as "first refusal." The Minister is going to give an owner a first refusal. I have never been able to understand what that term means. I believe it is merely a request to the owner of property not to sell until the person concerned has had time to consider whether he is willing to make an offer of purchase. I think this matter requires a little further consideration, because it is a point of great substance.

Mr. Hudson: If it is the feeling of the Committee that some further consideration ought to be given to the matter, I am anxious to meet their wishes. I will consider it during the week-end, and there will be an opportunity, of course, for recasting the Clause in another place.

Mr. Pym: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir William Wayland: T beg to move, in page 9, line 24, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
The Minister must offer land back to the previous owner within a period of five years and, if the owner does not accept, he may put the land on the market for sale. My Amendment would substitute "shall" for "may." I feel firmly that agriculture is far more likely to be prosperous if the farmer owns the land than if he hires it. I was particularly struck when a Parliamentary party who visited Norway and the Norwegian Minister of Agriculture told us that in that very democratic country 95 per cent. of the land was owned by small farmers. I am certain that, if we want to ensure that agriculture pulls its weight to the greatest extent after the war, we want to make as many owner


fanners as we possibly can, and the more farmers who own the land, the better and the more profitable will the land be. One of the drawbacks of letting land for farming in this country has been that leases are usually for five or seven years and sometimes, though not often, as low as three. It is natural that the tenant will not put everything into the land, and, generally speaking, when the tenancy finishes, the land is not in such good heart as it was when he first took it over. That is especially the case with grass. The tenant may cut the grass year after year for hay if he has hired the land from someone else. If he was the owner, he would not ruin it by cutting it year after year. He would manure it and conserve it. On the whole I am confident that the future agricultural prosperity of the country relies upon two things—support from the Government of the day—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing the whole agricultural future of the country but merely whether we shall put in "may" or "shall."

Sir W. Wayland: I am confident that if the word "shall" is substituted for "may," it will be better for British agriculture.

Sir J. Lamb: Speaking for myself, for the reasons that I gave previously, I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I can see very great advantage in the Government having an opportunity of retaining some of this land in their own hands and having to demonstrate the practicability of some theories which have been put forward. There has been a claim for many years for the costing of production. It is a very difficult thing for a farmer, or an association of farmers, to give costings, but, when they have these farms in their own hands, the Government will have something to guide them in the fixation of prices in the future. If they can produce it themselves, there will be some argument that others shall do the same, but, if they cannot, the farmer will be supported in his argument that an article cannot be produced in practice except at a certain price.

Mr. T. Williams: For the very sound reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, we are bound to resist the Amendment. I think it is quite right

that, where the terms of Sub-section (1) have been complied with, and the original owner desires to repurchase his land, the Minister should not be compelled to sell merely for the sake of selling, One can think of many uses to which such land might be put. I hope the Committee will not compel the Minister to sell whether he feels disposed to or not.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Garro Jones: I have taken a certain amount of interest in the matter of the hardship imposed on tenant farmers struggling for a living out of their farms with insufficient capital. No doubt great hardship is inflicted on them when they are turned out of their farms. What provision is made for them? Are they to be given any option to be reinstated as tenants, and, if not, what is to be their position as regards the tenant right valuation? It arises on this Clause, because provision is made for the persons to whom the land must be offered when the Minister decides to dispose of it.

Mr. Hudson: We are dealing here with the ownership of land, and the hon. Member is talking about the position of the tenant farmer. The original tenant farmer, if it were the case of land farmed by a tenant, has disappeared. This is only a question of our offering the farm to the original owner.

Major Owen: The Parliamentary Secretary rather led the Committee to infer that the landlord would be able to repurchase his farm on condition that he promised to be a good boy in the future. Why is not the same opportunity given to the tenant farmer? He also may have learned his lesson. Why is he not to have the opportunity to get his farm back and cultivate it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry?

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Prevention of bee diseases.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: Any speech made on this Clause might easily give rise to some amusement. The keeping of bees in wartime, for example, by cottagers who live


near moors, has greatly increased, and my right hon. Friend will agree that it has been a valuable addition to the food supply and the sustenance of the public. I have no doubt that his advisers have told him this Clause is necessary and that some sort of control over bee-keepers is desirable. I would ask him, however, to give us an assurance that the administration of the Clause will be carried out in the mildest form possible, because I am sure the Committee will realise that some small, possibly ignorant, cottager occupying a small cottage near a moor would be rather alarmed if the very full powers in this Clause were brought to his notice. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how he proposes to put the Clause into operation. I would remind the Committee that we have had in respect of agriculture and, indeed, of all other industries, some unfortunate examples since the war began of controllers and officials being appointed who greatly harass individuals carrying on industry. This does not apply in the main to the large areas of land, but in a large degree to the small owners and cottagers.

Mr. Hudson: Although, no doubt, it may be true that the small cottager has increased the number of his bees, I am sure that my noble Friend would be the first to admit that that does not necessarily mean that his bees may not be spreading disease or that they ought to be outside the purview of any control. As I said in the Second Reading Debate, we have been in close touch on this matter with the various associations of bee-keepers. They have promised to put representatives on the strong advisory committee, of which an hon. Member of this House is a member, which will go into the powers given in this Clause in order to advise me what steps I should take to carry them out.

Earl Winterton: That entirely satisfies me provided representatives of this industry are being consulted.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, at the end, to insert:
and in the said sections the expression 'the Committee' means the Agricultural Executive Committee referred to in subsection (1) of

section thirty-one of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940.
The definition of "Committee" in Clause 15 does not properly describe the Committee for Scotland, and this Amendment makes the necessary definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out "installation of a".
On the Second Reading the House was afraid that these words might preclude the payment of drainage grants for the improvement of existing water supplies. It is not our intention to preclude such payments or to confine the grants to new installations. In order to make that plain we propose to leave out these words.

Mr. Snadden: I raised this point in the Second Reading Debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his proposal to change the wording. There is only one point about which I should like an assurance. The Minister of Agriculture said on Second Reading that this provision was meant to apply in cases where, owing to the ploughing campaign, stock had been moved from arable land to hill land and the owner found there was no available water supply on such land. I would like an assurance that this does not preclude a water supply being available for other cases; that the grant is not intended simply for cases in which, through the ploughing policy, stock is driven away from arable land to land where supplies are not available, but that it will apply to all cases.

Mr. Wedderburn: The distinction which my hon. Friend has drawn 15. not one that I have considered. I will have to look into the matter and if I find that the Bill does not make clear my hon. Friend's point I will see that consideration is given to making the necessary alteration at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prevention of speculation in land.)

For the purpose of preventing speculation in land during the present war, and for five years afterwards, no sale of agricultural land


shall be made at a higher cost per acre than the cost in the particular locality in which the land is situate prevailing at the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, except for the addition of a fair value per acre for the cost of improvements made in the meantime, and the Minister shall require that the vendor before the completion of any sale shall apply to the County Agricultural Committee, or such successors as the Minister shall appoint, for a declaration of the "average cost per acre at the date heretofore mentioned, and he shall submit to them such information as shall be required in regard to the cost of improvements made thereon which the committee or its successors, if satisfied, shall authorise the vendor to add to the cost per acre for the purpose of sale.—[Dr. Russell Thomas."]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have put down this new Clause because I find that there is a considerable amount of feeling as to the possibility of speculation in land since the war began by speculators both as individuals and as private companies. We see articles in the newspapers advising land buying and covering it up with such- suggestions as that it is high time our people returned to the land. Some of the people buying land are doing so not because they really want to take a part in the work of the soil; they are doing it in order to make future profits out of the possibility of building development or by getting a higher price for the improvements others have put into the land. In my Clause I have suggested that the vendor of the land should not be able to sell the land until he gets a valuation from the county agricultural committee of the land as it was in March, 1939, and that he should have to produce documents to show the value of the improvements. People will say that it is almost impossible for the committee to value land and that land valuation schemes have been tried before and have been a hopeless failure. I believe, however, that the county committees and the district committees working under them have gathered a tremendous knowledge of the land which can be used for this purpose. I can conceive of nothing that would be of greater benefit to the future of this country than that we should stop land speculation during the war.
I shall not go in detail into the effect of speculation between the two wars, but I would point out that 500,000 acres of our

country were imprisoned under bricks and mortar in the name of estate development. I shall not go into the state of agriculture between the two wars when the soil of our country was more derelict than if the German hordes had laid it waste. But the gamblers got hold of the best of this land. It consisted of land near towns, land which was fairly flat and well drained owing to the improvements made by local authorities, and land situated on great bypass roads. Farmers who owned small farms near these localities—farms of 150 acres which are so common in England— who found that they were making only about £3 a week owing to the condition of agriculture, said to themselves, "Why should we work at all when the gold of Midas lies around our doors?" Land which was worth £30 an acre was sold by these people for as much as £400, £500, or £600 an acre, and great fortunes were made in that way. But those who were not fortunate enough to own their own farms, the tenant farmers who wanted to live by working on the soil, existed in jeopardy every day of their lives. They had the vision that, at any moment, their best fields might be sold above their heads. They could not foresee the future. It was no good looking ahead.
On the Second Reading of this Bill the Secretary of State for Scotland asked for party co-operation and party unity. I see no cause of disunity if some Clause of this kind is inserted in the Bill, except between the rest of the community and the gamblers who live like parasites on its back sucking away its very life-blood. If we adopt a Clause of this kind we shall go a long way towards helping British agriculture, and we shall go a long way in preventing the land of this country being held to ransom. We shall go a long way to preserve the heritage that is ours, and our children will still be able to see
beds of violets blue
And fresh-blown roses washed in dew ";
and they will still be able to hear
The lark begin its flight,
And, singing, startle the dull night
From its watch-tower in the skies,
'Til the dapple dawn doth rise.
I believe that the stolidity of our people, our determination, our inability to acknowledge defeat in the hour of the gravest dangers, spring, in spite of four or five generations of urbanisation, from


the soil of our beloved country; and I believe that every fibre of our being is still nourished through the roots so deeply laid in the land of England by our ancestors over so many hundreds of years. I believe that Lord Baldwin was right—perhaps it was one of the few occasions on which he was really right—when he said that there is something in the breasts of all of us which responds to the burning of the wood fires on an Autumn evening; that there is something which stirs the heart of all of us when we see the ploughman disappear over the crest of the distant hill.
It is in this spirit that I ask the Committee to accept this Clause, or, if the Minister can think of something better, it is in this spirit that I appeal to him to prevent the land of this country being held up to auction; to help to preserve it in its purity and in the beauty with which nature has so richly endowed it for, the delight and use of future generations; and, at the same time, to help those who till the land and who earn their living upon the soil to attain greater safety and greater security.

Mr. De la Bère: Someone must initiate it. There must be a beginning.

Major Owen: I am very glad to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) has been persuaded to put down this Clause. I am not sure that it is the best Clause that could be devised for the purpose, but I would make an appeal to the Minister, if he is not satisfied with the Clause, to do something as quickly as possible to check the ramp which is now taking place. I have here a copy of the "Times" for today. I should like hon. Members to look at the advertisement columns, which include an advertisement of the estate which I mentioned in a previous speech. That estate was originally sold on 22nd September and half of it was bought by a firm of London auctioneers. In less than a fortnight they are publicly advertising that part for resale. The sale is to be held on 3rd November. Last Saturday I had an opportunity of seeing the tenants on that land. What a tragic meeting it was. They are people who have lived for generation after generation in those farms, into which they have put their very best for all those years. The proof of that is that the war

agricultural committee in my county, which is a very active and live committee, has not found it necessary to dispossess one of those tenants from his farm. All have worked according to the rules of good husbandry for all these generations, but now they are the victims of the most rabid kind of speculation.
The advertisement refers to one farm, the chief farm, which it mentions by name, Bryn Nodel. It is up for sale with, as the advertisement says, "260 or up to 476 acres." It has been a farm of 476 acres. What are those speculators doing? They go to the tenant and they tell him, "We will sell you this farm, but we are going to take away some of the very best land and add it on to some other holding." That is one excellent way of ruining farming in this country. What do those auctioneers know about that land? They know nothing at all about it. They do not know that this good land is necessary in order to enable the farmer profitably to farm the poorer land. The same thing is happening with another farm. As further proof of the fact that this is pure speculation I find in the advertisement the lines:
Lovely camping and building sites with frontage to the fine sandy beach at Hell's Mouth on the rocky and romantic northern coast.
It is purely a speculation by a firm here in London that has not the slightest interest in or the slightest knowledge of the conditions of farming, and with no interest whatsoever in the production of food. I do not know whether this Clause is the right kind of Clause to introduce, but I beg the Minister, and I know that I have the sympathy of the whole Committee with me in the matter, to give us an assurance to-day that before we come to the Report stage he will bring in a Clause which will deal with this matter and finally prevent these speculators from spoliating the land and exploiting the farming industry.

Mr. T. Williams: I rise early to reply on the proposed new Clause, because we are very anxious to obtain the remaining stages of the Bill. Hon. Members will appreciate the need for getting a move on with drainage and other matters dealt, with in the Bill. Let me say to the Mover and Seconder of the proposed new Clause that my right hon. Friend and


myself are utterly opposed to speculation in land, and that the matter is receiving attention. However, this is neither the right Bill nor the right Clause in which to tackle a problem of this kind. As printed, the Clause can be shown immediately to be impracticable. Owing to the variation in the inherent value of agricultural land in particular localities, it would be impossible for a county war agricultural committee, which, in any case, has not been constituted to act as a valuation authority, to ascertain or declare a flat-rate per acre for agricultural land in each locality. Moreover, the existence of a house and buildings, and their character and state of repair, have a bearing on the value per acre of an agricultural holding. Without wasting the time of the Committee, I repeat that the matter is receiving attention. We are utterly opposed to this speculation, but we can do nothing with the Clause as submitted.

Major Owen: Will the Minister give a pledge that legislation will be brought in immediately to deal with the matter, and that it shall be retrospective?

Earl Winterton: I support most heartily what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. We are in agreement with the proposal, which is a most modest one. but I agree with the Minister that it might not be practicable to put it into the Clause. The Committee knows that I have persistently supported action in this direction, and there is no difference of opinion on any side of the Committee, so far as I know, as to the urgency of the matter. It is one of the biggest questions with which we have to deal. It is rather remarkable, as an hon. Friend has reminded me, that, while we hear much talk of reconstruction and of building after, the war, not until this scandal is raised by Members below the Gangway do we hear anything on the subject from the Government. There has been considerable criticism in the Press on this matter. It was referred to in practically every Sunday newspaper, where it was observed that, once again, when a real scandal had been brought to the notice of the Government, all the Government could say was that the matter was under consideration.
I beg of the Minister to go to the War Cabinet, and to the Prime Minister him

self, and to represent to him the strong feeling that has existed during the Debates on this Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, that this is a grave scandal. I am sure that all my hon. Friends who believe in the private ownership of land will agree with me that nothing is more calculated to injure our case than the action of these abominable sharks, war profiteers, who are attempting to buy up agricultural land.

Sir J. Lamb: I quite appreciate that the Government may not be able to do anything immediately, but I hope the Minister will consider the making of a statement by the Government that legislation will be retrospective.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister give us some assurance that action will be taken in this matter, about which everybody feels concern? We ought not to be put off with the statement that the matter will be looked into afterwards. Speculation in land is serious and grievous, and everywhere we go we are being asked what is to happen. We want some definite pledge that the matter will be followed up immediately, so that the position will be put in order.

Mr. Hudson: Obviously, I cannot give any pledge on behalf of the Government, and I cannot commit my colleagues. All I can say, speaking as Minister of Agriculture, is that speculation in land is abhorrent to me. One of the troubles I am up against to-day throughout the country is that many people were forced to buy their farms during the boom of 1921, which was followed by a slump. It is the land speculation of that time that is the cause of much of the bad cultivation with which I am having to deal to-day. I assure the Committee that my Department and I share their feelings; but that is a different thing from committing my colleagues to a major proposal of this kind. All I can say is that we are considering the question and that I will do my best to see that it is considered urgently.

Major Owen: Will the Minister give the Committee an undertaking that he will put this matter before the Prime Minister immediately? We shall be satisfied with that undertaking. If he will give us an undertaking that the matter will be submitted forthwith, without any further delay, to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, we shall be satisfied.

Mr. Wedgwood: Would the Minister kindly call the attention of the War Cabinet to the opinion expressed in this Committee that the only possible way of stopping speculation in land is to tax land values?

Dr. Russell Thomas: After hearing the assurances of the Minister—I trust that he will do something in the matter—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I should like to add that I put down the Clause because there was a considerable amount of feeling on the matter. Although I feared the proposed new Clause was impracticable, I wanted to ventilate the question in this Committee so that the land of our country should not be put up for barter and be a stake in a gamblers' den.

Mr. Stokes: It always has been.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Recovery from Drainage Boards of expenses of certain drainage works.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 18, leave out "Part of this."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions applicable to recovery of expenses from owners of land.)

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 16, line 41, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."
It is felt that the time laid down, one month, for the payment in this case is rather rushing matters, and we are asking the Minister to agree to extend that period.

Mr. T. Williams: This Amendment, and those which follow it, arc readily accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Farther Amendments made:

In page 17, line 3, leave our "month," and insert "three months."

In line 18, leave out "month," and insert "three months."

In line 20, leave out "fourteen days," and insert "one month."—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule agreed' to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Hudson.]

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. I do not wish—and indeed it would be too late—to contest the Motion which has just been passed, but I should like to ask whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House to bring in a Motion for the suspension of a Standing Order on Government Business when a large number of Members have left the House believing that the custom of moving that Motion at an earlier stage in the day's Business would have been maintained. I do not wish to contest it at this moment, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that he docs not intend to make this a precedent.

Mr. Tinker: I was taken completely by surprise. It is a new thing altogether, and although I had not the temerity to get up straight away, I felt that there was something wrong in the whole business that required some explanation. Members should be notified; it is as well that they should know.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member ought to know that these Resolutions were originally passed in Secret Session. We cannot therefore very well advertise them.

Mr. Hudson: I should like to explain that I moved this Motion in order to enable us to carry out the programme announced last week, which was Committee and if possible further stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, and of the Local Elections Bill, in order that the three Bills might go to another place.

Mr. Stokes: Surely this puts us into a very funny position. The normal procedure is that the suspension of Standing Orders is made at the end of Questions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not under the present Rule.

Mr. Stokes: Well, it seems an astonishing procedure that the Government should hold it in their hands to suspend Standing Orders at any moment.

Mr. Silverman: I agree with the decision of the House in passing the Resolution, but I think the point made by my hon. Friend has not been met. We ought to have an assurance that it will not become the recognised practice of the Government to move Resolutions of this kind at such a very late stage in the Sitting and without giving hon. Members notice of the intention to move it, so that, if they desire, they may oppose it.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. Gentleman must see that a point of substance has been raised, and unless he can make some statement now we shall have to raise the matter after Questions at a future Sitting.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): It certainly will not be a practice of the Government. This is the second time in my recollection that it has been found necessary to do this. I quite agree with what hon. Members have said; it would be a regrettable habit to get into, and I regret that it should have been necessary. It was hoped that we could have completed the Business, but owing to the time this was doubtful. It is a matter which affects the Sittings in another place. I hope that, with this assurance, the House will be prepared to continue with the Business.

Bill, as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1 (Prolongation of present Parliament.)

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to add:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate so as to extend the duration of the present or any subsequent Parliament beyond seven years as defined by the Septennial Act, 1715.
It will be understood that I do not want to repeat the somewhat lengthy Debate that we had last time on this point. It will be remembered that, as a result of a Debate in which a number of hon. Members expressed grave disquiet as to what

the meaning of the Clause as it stands really is, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertook to have the point looked into between that stage and the present one, and I have put down this Amendment as much as anything in order to give the Government an opportunity of dealing more satisfactorily with the points that were raised than they dealt with them on the last occasion. Without wishing to repeat the whole of the Debate or anything like it, it might be convenient if I were to summarise, now that we have a row of Law Officers of the Crown present who were not present at that time, the nature of the argument presented.
In short, the argument ran like this: It was said that the present Bill sought to repeal Section 7 of the Parliament Act, 1911, so far as it related to this Parliament. Section 7 of the Parliament Act, 1911, affected in some way or other— it was a subject of some controversy— the Septennial Act, 1715. We who raised this point said that it could only affect the Septennial Act, 1715, by repealing those portions of it which it was desired should no longer be the law of the land and enacting new provisions in their place. In other words, the Septennial Act provided that no Parliament should last longer than seven years, and Section 7 of the Parliament Act provided that no Parliament should last longer than five years. Without this Bill, therefore, the position is that no Parliament can last longer than five years. There is on the Statute Book no other provision limiting the life of Parliament. Stating the case as clearly as I can, there is nowhere on the Statute Book any provision that Parliament shall automatically come to an end at any time, except the provision of the Septennial Act amended by the Parliament Act 1911, that is to say, after five years. If therefore you decide that the only statutory provision which ensures that Parliament shall come to an end at the end of a fixed period shall not apply to this. Parliament, and do nothing more than that, then you have already enacted that there shall be no date on which this Parliament shall automatically come to an end.
With all respect to those whose business it is to advise the Government upon these problems, I confess that, so far, I have heard no answer to that argument, and, indeed, I cannot conceive what answer


there could be to it. The argument presented to the House by the Home Secretary on the Second Reading of this Bill was, "We have not repealed the Septennial Act of 1715; we have not even repealed the seven years. All that the Parliament Act did was to substitute five for seven, and therefore if you enact now that that substitution shall not apply to this Parliament, then, automatically, the position enacted by the Septennial Act, 1715, unamended by the Parliament Act, 1911, is restored." My own personal difficulty is to see how the seven years' period is restored unless you enact it. You have to repeal the ''seven'' in order to put in "five." If you want to remove the "five" to put in "seven," then unless you take steps to re-enact the amended part of the Septennial Act, you are left without any period at all to the life of Parliament. The suggestion I have made in my Amendment may or may not be a good one. It did seem to me that if it were accepted, it would remove any possible doubt there might be without effecting the structure of the Clause or the structure of the Act very materially. I have endeavoured to state in the Amendment what the doubt is in such a way as to remove it, and therefore I propose to add at the end of Clause I:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate so as to extend the duration of the present or any subsequent Parliament beyond seven years as defined by the Septennial Act, 17I5.
Whether these are apt words or not, I do not know. I thought that they were, but they are capable of emendation if they are not, and I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment in favour of any Amendment proposed by the Government with the same object. I think that something should be done to remove the very substantial doubt, even if the argument is not put higher than that. I cannot understand why the Clause was ever drafted in this way. Even if the Government's interpretation of it is correct, I think they would be disposed to agree that a half-dozen other ways of achieving this result were open to them which did not raise this doubt. In a Measure of such constitutional importance as this, I do not think I am putting it too high if I say that it is vital not merely that there shall, in fact, be no doubt to the legal mind, but there shall be no doubt in the lay mind

either, that any public uneasiness should be allayed. There is no point in enacting it in a way that gives rise to serious doubts in people's minds if you can enact it in some other way.
May I reinforce my argument by pointing out that the Title of the Bill supports the contention that this is not a Bill to restore the Septennial Act? This is not a Bill to make the life of Parliament seven years instead of five. It is not so described. It is a Bill "to extend the duration of the present Parliament." Extend it to what? Extend it indefinitely so far as the Title of the Bill is concerned, and so far as any argument derived from the Title of the Bill goes it tends to support the argument of the doubters, and not the argument of the Government.
May I deal with one suggestion which has been made to me? It has been suggested to me that the Amendment I have put down might possibly be understood to mean that Parliament shall come to an end at the end of the seventh year, without any right to prolong its duration beyond the seven years although the circumstances might require such an extension. Of course, it does not. No Act of Parliament can bind Parliament for the future, or bind any future Parliament, or this Parliament next Session. If, when the time comes, if is still felt necessary to extend the duration of this Parliament, another Bill is introduced if this Amendment is passed just as it would have been if this Amendment was not accepted. That was the supposition when any of these prolongation Bills were exacted at all. It seems to me that there is, at the very least, a substantial doubt here, and the Government ought to do something to remove it.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I hope I shall be able to convince the Committee and the hon. Member not only that there is no doubt, but that it was the proper and, indeed, the only way in which to draft this Bill, having regard to the way in which the matter is dealt with by the Parliament Act. To accept this Amendment would, indeed, throw real doubt on a regular method employed by this House in dealing with old Statutes into which it wants to introduce alterations. When it does that it can and does employ one or other of two methods. It can repeal those Statutes or the part of the Statute with


which it is dealing, or a Sub-section or whatever is involved, or it can leave the Statute on the Statute Book, substituting, as happens here, "five" for "seven," or substituting some words for some other words; the old Statute is left on the Statute Book. This is really a clear case of the use of what I call the second method. The operative words of the Septennial Act are:
This present Parliament and all Parliaments that shall at any time hereafter be called, assembled, or held, shall and may respectively have continuance for seven years, and no longer, to be accounted from the day on which by the writ of summons this present Parliament hath been, or any future Parliament shall be, appointed to meet unless this present or any such Parliament hereafter to be summoned shall be sooner dissolved by His Majesty, his heirs or successors.
We have always to remember that the maximum period of Statutes is never inconsistent with the dissolution of Parliament at an earlier date; otherwise, we should finally talk ourselves out at the end of seven years, and then have a General Election. When the matter was dealt with in 1911 in the Parliament Act, they proceeded not by way of repeal, but by substituting "five" for "seven." Therefore, the statutory position is that the Septennial Act is the governing Act, with "five" substituted for "seven" in those words that I have just read. If you look up the chronological index of the Statutes, you will find a reference to the Septennial Act as amended by the Act of 1911. Once you repeal the amendment in the Act of 1911, the Septennial Act stands in its original form. That was the problem that confronted us last year when we desired to submit to Parliament a Bill giving power to extend the life of this Parliament by one year unless it was dissolved. The method adopted—in fact the only method that would have occurred to any person—was to take the Parliament Act, and to say "for 'five' in that Act, read 'six'". You could not have gone straight back to the Septennial Act, because then you would have left the Parliament Act still there; so "six" was written into the Parliament Act. This year Parliament wants to go back to the Septennial Act. The only method I see of doing it is to take off for this period that Section of the Parliament Act which amended the Septennial Act.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. and learned Friend may not have looked into this point, and if he has not I shall not trouble him further about it; but can he think of any precedent for an Act subsequently amended, as the Septennial Act was amended by the Parliament Act, being restored by some such method as this?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I have not a precedent in my head, but there are many cases in which it could be done. Being a progressive body, the House of Commons does not often want to go back to a Statute, or a part of a Statute, which it has already altered. If it wants a further change, it very seldom wants to go back to the precise form in which our ancestors, in their wisdom, dealt with the problem at the time. But I think precedents could be found. There can be no doubt that when this Bill becomes an Act it will leave the Septennial Act as the operative Act—as it has always been—unamended by Section 7 of the Parliament Act, which was the only Section which ever altered it.

Mr. A. Bevan: By what legislation is the life of Parliament in future to be confined to seven years?

The Attorney-General: This Bill applies only to the present Parliament. It says:
Section seven of the Parliament Act, 1911 (which provides that five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715) shall not apply to the present Parliament.
If we are again faced next year with this problem, we shall no doubt consider the proper form. I believe that what I have said accurately states the position beyond doubt. I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be very unfortunate to accept an Amendment which would make people in future ask why these words were inserted which threw doubt on the statutory position. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) referred to the Long Title. I think that if it stated that the life of the present Parliament was to be extended by one year, that might be regarded as meaning that the Bill was to extend the life of Parliament for one year irrespective of the right to dissolve Parliament.

Mr. Silverman: Suppose you said that it was to extend the maximum life of Parliament by one year?

The Attorney-General: I hope that I have dealt with my hon. Friend's argument, and that the Committee are satisfied and that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I think my right hon. and learned Friend would be very surprised if I said that his arguments had satisfied me, and that he would not believe me anyhow. So I shall not say any such thing. But I am perfectly satisfied, both from what the Home Secretary said on the Second Reading and from what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, that it is not the intention of the Government that this Bill should operate to extend the maximum life of Parliament by more than one year, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 37.
This Schedule contains a number of new Sub-sections which it is intended to add to the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, in regard to qualifications in the City of London for voters and for candidates. Certain words at the end of the

proposed new Sub-section (3) which appear in the Schedule have been found, by further research, to be unnecessary. The words are:
section six of the said Act… shall have effect, in the case of any such election taking place as aforesaid, as if the words that I am
an occupier of premises in the ward of … and ' were omitted.
The Act referred to is the City of London Municipal Elections (Amendment) Act, 1867. Section 6 of the City of London Municipal Elections (Amendment) Act, 1867, was in fact repealed by the City of London Ballot Act, 1887, and it was only after this Bill had been drafted that that repeal was discovered. The reason for that is that there is no index of local Acts of Parliament, and in a matter of this sort the Parliamentary draftsmen have to rely upon the advice of local government officials. I am glad to say that the mistake was discovered before the Bill had finally passed this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year ending 31st March, 1942, presented to this House on 2nd October, be approved." — [Captain Austin Hudson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and. postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]